LEASEAMERICA CORP OF WISCONSIN v

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NO. 80-269 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1981 LEASEAMERICA CORPORATION O WISCONSIN, F P l a i n t i f f s and R e s p o n d e n t s , VS . STATE OF MONTANA, D e f e n d a n t and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: District Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k . H o n o r a b l e Gordon B e n n e t t , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: Hon. Mike G r e e l y , A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l , a r g u e d , H e l e n a , Montana Richard Larson argued, A s s i s t a n t A t t o r n e y General, H e l e n a , Montana For Respondents: J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t and Weaver, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana J a c k Lewis a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed: February 1 7 , 1981 MAR 1 6 1989 MAR 1 6 9. y 4 Clerk Mr. Justice Frank B. Morrison, Jr., delivered the opinion of the Court. The State appeals a Lewis & Clark County District Court decision awarding plaintiff, Leaseamerica, a summary judgment. Leaseamerica cross-appeals for prejudgment and post-judgment interest. In 1967 the Legislature authorized the state attorney general to establish a law enforcement teletypewriter communications system (LETS) and to acquire the necessary equipment by'lease, purchase or other means. In March 1973, then Attorney General Robert Woodahl entered into a lease arrangement with Action Communications Systems, Leaseamerica's assignor, whereby the State agreed to lease the necessary equipment for a period of six years, paying $2,388 in 72 monthly payments. Immediately thereafter, Action assigned the lease to Leaseamerica, together with all rights to the lease payments. The State made the lease payments from May 1973 to May 1977, when Attorney General Mike Greely notified Leaseamerica that it was unilaterally terminating the lease. Notice of Action's sale, assignment, and transfer of all interest in the lease to Leaseamerica was not filed with the state auditor until shortly before this lawsuit was instituted. At the end of the 72-month period, Leaseamerica took possession of the equipment. On February 9, 1978, Leaseamerica commenced an action seeking: (1) specific performance of the State's obligation to pay under the lease; (2) attorney fees pursuant to an indemnity provision in the lease; (3) prejudgment and post- judgment interest. The District Court entered judgment in favor of Leaseamerica for the lease payments and attorney fees but denied ~easeamerica's claim for interest. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h i s a p p e a l : 1. I s a s i x - y e a r l e a s e of a law e n f o r c e m e n t communica- t i o n s system e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l of t h e S t a t e of Montana i n March 1973 u n e n f o r c e a b l e a s a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 82-1918, R.C.M. 1947, which t h e n l i m i t e d t h e t e r m of t h o s e s t a t e c o n t r a c t s covered by t h e s t a t u t e t o t h r e e y e a r s ? 2. Is a n a s s i g n e e of t h e l e s s o r of a law enforcement communications system p r o h i b i t e d by s e c t i o n 1 7 - 8 - 2 1 1 ( 1 ) , MCA, from f i l i n g a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e f o r s p e c i f i c performance of t h e l e a s e agreement where n o t i c e of t h e a s s i g n m e n t of t h e l e s s o r ' s i n t e r e s t t o t h e a s s i g n e e was n o t f i l e d with the s t a t e auditor u n t i l j u s t p r i o r t o the f i l i n g of t h e action? 3. Is t h e S t a t e o b l i g a t e d t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s where a l e a s e p r o v i d e d f o r i n d e m n i f i c a t i o n of l e s s o r , and t h e l e s s o r ' s s u c c e s s o r s , f o r f a i l u r e of t h e S t a t e t o perform o r comply w i t h any of t h e t e r m s of t h e agreement? 4. A f t e r a d o p t i o n of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , i s t h e S t a t e o b l i g a t e d t o pay prejudgment and post-judgment i n t e r e s t on l e a s e payments from t h e due d a t e of e a c h payment? The l e a s e h e r e i n d i s p u t e was e x e c u t e d i n March of 1973. A t t h a t t i m e , Ch. 1 9 , of T i t l e 82, e n t i t l e d P u r c h a s i n g Department and Agent, s e c t i o n 82-1918, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e d : "Contracts limited t o three years. N contracts o s h a l l be made f o r a l o n g e r p e r i o d t h a n t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s -- c o n t r a c t s h a l l p r o v i d e f o r t h e and s u c h d e l i v e r y of such a r t i c l e s a t such t i m e s and i n s u c h q u a n t i t i e s - - p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t may dea s the termine." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . ) The s u b j e c t l e a s e was e x e c u t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l p u r s u a n t t o power d e r i v e d from s e c t i o n s 44-2-301, 44-2-302, MCA. MCA, and The former a u t h o r i z e d e s t a b l i s h m e n t of a law enforcement telecommunications system w h i l e t h e l a t t e r a u t h o r i z e d t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o l e a s e equipment n e c e s s a r y f o r accomplishing t h e o b j e c t i v e . I n H o l t z v . Babcock ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 3 Mont. 869, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t l e a s e - - p u r c h a s e 341, 389 P.2d c o n t r a c t s executed by t h e s t a t e p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t were s u b j e c t t o c o m p e t i t i v e b i d d i n g r e q u i r e m e n t s of t h e s t a t e p u r c h a s i n g s t a t u t e s . Here t h e i s s u e s a r e w h e t h e r t h o s e same s t a t u t e s and i n p a r t i c u l a r , s e c t i o n 82-1918, 1947, l i m i t i n g c o n t r a c t s R.C.M. t o t h r e e y e a r s , a p p l i e d (1) t o l e a s e s which h a v e no o p t i o n ,and t o p u r c h a s e ( 2 ) t o l e a s e s e x e c u t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l . The q u e s t i o n s have n o t p r e v i o u s l y been d e c i d e d by t h i s Court. Applicable r u l e s of construction a r e : (1) Both t h e con- t e x t of a s t a t u t e and t h e p l a i n meaning o f i t s t e r m s c a n b e considered i n determining l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t . A d o p t i o n o f Smigaj ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 1 Mont. I n Matter of 537, 540, 560 P.2d 1 4 1 . ( 2 ) The t i t l e t o a n a c t may b e l o o k e d t o i n c o n s t r u i n g t h e act. P.2d I n r e Coleman's E s t a t e ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 880. ( 3 ) Zn d e t e r m i n i n g l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t a c o u r t c a n r e s o r t t o h i s t o r y of t h e s t a t u t e . Sound Power St.Rep. 339, 343, 317 & Dept. o f Rev. v . P u g e t Mont. Light (1978), , 587 P.2d 1282, 35 1368. When p a s s e d i n 1923, s e c t i o n 82-1918, l i m i t e d c o n t r a c t s t o one year. R.C.M. 1947, T h i s s t a t u t e was i n e f f e c t when, i n 1967, s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i z a t i o n empowered t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l t o l e a s e telecommunications equipment. The o n e - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n was changed t o t h r e e y e a r s by amendment i n 1971. S e c t i o n 82-1918, R.C.M. 1947, a s i t e x i s t e d when t h e p r e s e n t l e a s e was e x e c u t e d , was s i l e n t r e g a r d i n g l e a s e s . When t h e L e g i s l a t u r e g r a n t e d l e a s i n g power t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l , a l i m i t a t i o n of y e a r s was n o t p r o v i d e d e i t h e r by reference t o the chapter covering purchasing agent o r l i m i t e d i n Ch. 2, T i t l e 4 4 , which e s t a b l i s h e d t h e system. L e g i s l a t u r e amended s e c t i o n 82-1918, The i n 1971, f o u r y e a r s a f t e r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l was a u t h o r i z e d t o l e a s e telecommunic a t i o n s equipment; t h e r e was no l e g i s l a t i v e a t t e m p t t o a p p l y t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 82-1918 t o T i t l e 4 4 . P r i o r t o t h e 1971 l e g i s l a t i v e s e s s i o n , t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l had, on J u l y 1 4 , 1969, i s s u e d a f o r m a l o p i n i o n s t a t i n g t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s of s e c t i o n 82-1918, not apply t o s t a t e leases. R.C.M. 1947, d i d The l e a s e i s s u e was b e i n g d i s c u s s e d and was a s u b j e c t of a n a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s o p i n i o n when s e c t i o n 82-1918 was amended i n 1971; y e t t h e p r o h i b i t i o n s w e r e not applied t o leases. W a r e persuaded by t h e f o l l o w i n g f a c t o r s : e 82-1918, R.C.M. (1) S e c t i o n 1947, r e f e r s s p e c i f i c a l l y t o t h e p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t , b u t i t d o e s n o t r e f e r t o any o t h e r a g e n t s of s t a t e government. ( 2 ) E e c t i o n 82-1918 i s a s e c t i o n under Ch. 1 9 , e n t i t l e d P u r c h a s i n g Department Agent. (3) T i t l e 44, g i v i n g t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l power t o l e a s e t e l e c o m m u n i c a t i o n s equipment, d o e s n o t l i m i t t h a t power a s t o t i m e . ( 4 ) Section 82-1918 was amended i n 1971, f o u r y e a r s a f t e r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l w a s a u t h o r i z e d t o l e a s e w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n and two y e a r s a f t e r t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l gave an o p i n i o n t h a t s e c t i o n 82-1918 d i d n o t a p p l y t o l e a s e s ; y e t no a t t e m p t was made by t h e L e g i s l a t u r e t o a p p l y s e c t i o n 82-1918 t o t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l ' s l e a s i n g power. W f i n d s e c t i o n 82-1918, e R.C.M. 1947, n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o l e a s e s e x e c u t e d by t h e a t t o r n e y g e n e r a l p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 44-2-302, MCA. The S t a t e c o n t e n d s t h a t f a i l u r e of Leaseamerica o r i t s a s s i g n o r t o record t h e l e a s e assignment with t h e s t a t e a u d i t o r p r i o r t o F e b r u a r y of 1978 forecloses t h i s action which was n o t i n s t i t u t e d u n t i l F e b r u a r y 9, 1978. S e c t i o n 17-8-211 ( I ) , MCA, p r o v i d e s : " A l l t r a n s f e r s and a s s i g n m e n t s made of any c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e , o r any p a r t t h e r e o f o r i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n , e x c e p t a s h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d , s h a l l be a b s o l u t e l y n u l l and v o i d and u n e n f o r c e a b l e a g a i n s t t h e s t a t e unless the assignee thereof f i l e s w r i t t e n n o t i c e of t h e a s s i g n m e n t on such forms a s may be r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t e a u d i t o r , t o g e t h e r w i t h a t r u e copy of t h e i n s t r u m e n t of a s s i g n m e n t . " (Emphasis supplied.) P a r a g r a p h No. 1 3 of t h e s u b j e c t l e a s e s t a t e d : "Lessor may, w i t h o u t l e s s e e ' s c o n s e n t , a s s i g n t h i s l e a s e o r any i n t e r e s t therein." The S t a t e knew of t h e a s s i g n m e n t and made payments t o t h e a s s i g n e e Leaseamerica f o r a p e r i o d of four years. The S t a t e ' s p o s i t i o n must f a i l f o r a t l e a s t t h r e e r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o a s s i g n m e n t s of " c l a i m " r a t h e r t h a n a s s i g n m e n t s of c o n t r a c t . Anti-assignment s t a t u t e s have h i s t o r i c a l l y been l i m i t e d t o l i q u i d a t e d d e b t s . Chemical Co. v. William S . Gray 638. & Co. Explosive ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 207 N.Y.Supp. Secondly, t h e s t a t u t e d o e s n o t r e q u i r e f i l i n g w i t h i n a t i m e c e r t a i n and a f i l i n g was e v e n t u a l l y made w i t h t h e a u d i t o r p r i o r t o i n s t i t u t i n g s u i t on F e b r u a r y 9 , 1978. F i n a l l y , t h e S t a t e c a n c l a i m no p r e j u d i c e a s i t had a c t u a l n o t i c e of t h e a s s i g n m e n t and made l e a s e payments t o Leaseamerica f o r four years. Leaseamerica c l a i m s a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o a c o n t r a c t u a l provision with the State. The S t a t e was t o indemnify t h e l e s s o r f o r " l e g a l expenses'' i n c u r r e d a s t h e r e s u l t of any d e f a u l t upon t h e p a r t of l e s s e e , S t a t e of Montana. S e c t i o n 18-1-404, MCA, p r o v i d e s : " L i a b i l i t y of state--1imi tation--costs. (1) The S t a t e of Montana s h a l l be l i a b l e i n r e s p e c t t o any c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o i n t h e same manner and t o t h e same e x t e n t a s a p r i v a t e i n d i v i d u a l under l i k e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , e x c e p t t h e S t a t e of Montana s h a l l n o t be l i a b l e f o r i n t e r e s t p r i o r t o o r a f t e r judgment o r f o r p u n i t i v e damages. " C 2 ) C o s t s may b e a l l o w e d a s p r o v i d e d i n 25-10-711. I n a l l o t h e r c a s e s , c o s t s s h a l l be allowed i n a l l c o u r t s t o t h e s u c c e s s f u l c l a i m a n t t o t h e same ext e n t a s i f t h e s t a t e of Montana were a p r i v a t e l i t i g a n t , e x c e p t t h a t such c o s t s s h a l l n o t i n c l u d e attorney's fees." S e c t i o n 25-10-711, MCA, r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e above-quoted s t a t u t e , p r o v i d e s f o r a n award of r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e e v e n t t h a t t h e S t a t e ' s l i t i g a t i o n i s deemed t o be f r i v o l o u s o r i s p u r s u e d i n bad f a i t h . N e i t h e r of t h o s e f a c t o r s e x i s t here. A r e a d i n g of t h e s e s t a t u t e s compels t h e c o n c l u s i o n t h a t l i a b i l i t y f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s can a r i s e from c o n t r a c t b u t c a n n o t be awarded a s " c o s t s " a b s e n t bad f a i t h on t h e S t a t e ' s part. The S t a t e h a s r e l i e d on Tomten v . Thomas ( 1 9 5 1 ) , 125 Mont. 159, 232 P.2d 723, wherein t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e word " e x p e n s e n w a s synonymous w i t h " c o s t s " . Therefore, a r g u e s t h e S t a t e , " l e g a l expense" a s d e n o t e d i n t h e l e a s e i s a c o s t and c a n n o t be awarded a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e u n l e s s t h e S t a t e l i t i g a t e s i n bad f a i t h . Tomten v. Thomas, s u p r a , was o v e r r u l e d by C a l l a n t v . F e d e r a l Land Bank of Spokane ( 1 9 7 9 ) , 1036, 36 St.Rep. 824. Mont. , 593 P.2d Legal " e x p e n s e s " a r e n o t synonymous w i t h " c o s t s " b u t r a t h e r , when p r o v i d e d c o n t r a c t u a l l y , a r e t r e a t e d a s a s p e c i a l damage r e c o v e r a b l e i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p r i n c i p a l sum. Bovee v . Helland ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 52 Mont. 151, 156 W e f i n d t h e S t a t e l i a b l e f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s under i t s l e a s e indemnity p r o v i s i o n . Leaseamerica a s s e r t s t h a t i t i s e n t i t l e d t o i n t e r e s t on i t s judgment d e s p i t e t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 1 8 - 1 - 4 0 4 ( 1 ) , MCA, q u o t e d above, which p r o h i b i t s an award of i n t e r e s t against the State. Leaseamerica a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 1 8 - 1 - 4 0 4 ( 1 ) , MCA, i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h A r t i c l e 2 , S e c t i o n 18 of t h e 1972 S t a t e C o n s t i t u t i o n which p r o v i d e s t h a t a governmental e n t i t y s h a l l have "no immunity from s u i t o r i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y . " The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h i s language was i n t e n d e d t o apply t o t o r t but n o t c o n t r a c t actions. W have reviewed t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e b a t e p r i o r t o t h e e a d o p t i o n of t h i s p a r t i c u l a r s e c t i o n . The o r i g i n a l d r a f t of S e c t i o n 1 8 , Non-immunity -- p r o v i d e d : from S u i t , "The S t a t e and i t s s u b d i v i s i o n s h a l l have no s p e c i a l immunity from s u i t . " D e l e g a t e Habedank i n t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n a l Convention moved t o s u p p o r t a n amendment which would a d d , f o l l o w i n g t h e words s u i t , t h e language " f o r i n j u r y t o a p e r s o n o r p r o p e r t y . " D e l e g a t e Habedank, t h e s p o n s o r of t h e amendment, r e v e a l e d i t s i n t e n t i n t h e debate: "Limited a s i t i s , f o r i n j u r y t o a person o r p r o p e r t y , t h e L e g i s l a t u r e i s s t i l l f r e e t o make i t more open i f t h e y d e s i r e t o do s o i n t h e f u t u r e . B u t we a t l e a s t have a s s u r e d t h e p e o p l e o f t h e S t a t e of Montana Con.Con. t h a t they can sue f o r n e g l i g e n t i n j u r y . " T r a n s c r i p t TR. P. 5430, l i n e s 10-14. W e a g r e e w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e i n t e n t of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e l e g a t e s was t o l i m i t nonimmunity t o t o r t s committed by t h e S t a t e . W e find the statutory prohibition against i n t e r e s t i n s e c t i o n 18-1-404(1), MCA, t o be c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . The S t a t e of Montana i s n o t l i a b l e f o r prejudgment o r post-judgment interest. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: v Mr. Justices J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea w i l l f i l e a s e p a r a t e o p i n i o n l a t e r . Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d i s s e n t i n g : I respectfully dissent. The r e s u l t r e a c h e d by t h e m a j o r i t y may be a n e q u i t a b l e a c c o m m o d a t i o n , b u t i n my v i e w it is not the law. A t the t i m e the six-year lease o f t h e e q u i p m e n t was e n t e r e d i n t o b e t w e e n L e a s e a m e r i c a and t h e S t a t e of Montana, o u r s t a t u t e provided: No "Contracts limited to three ( 3 ) years. c o n t r a c t s s h a l l be made f o r a p e r i o d l o n q e r t h a n t h r e e ( 3 ) y e a r s , and s u c h c o n t k a c t s h a l l - p r o v i d e f o r t h e d e l i v e r y o f s u c h a r t i c l e s a t s u c h times a n d i n s u c h q u a n t i t i e s as t h e p u r c h a s i n g a g e n t may d e t e r m i n e . " L a w s of Montana ( 1 9 7 1 ) , Ch. 3 0 1 , S 2. A l e a s e is a c o n t r a c t . H e r e i t w a s made f o r a p e r i o d of Such a c o n t r a c t was p r o h i b i t e d by t h e c l e a r , unam- s i x years. b i g u o u s language of t h e s t a t u t e . I n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e , t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e is controlling. R a i l w a y Co. S e c t i o n 1-2-102, MCA; H a k e r v. S o u t h w e s t e r n ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. 364, 3 6 9 , 5 7 8 P.2d 7 2 4 , 7 2 7 , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n ; Dunphy v. Anaconda C o . ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. 7 6 , 8 0 , 438 P.2d 660, 6 6 2 , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . The i n t e n t i o n of t h e L e g i s l a t u r e m u s t f i r s t be d e t e r m i n e d f r o m t h e p l a i n meaning o f t h e w o r d s u s e d i n t h e s t a t u t e , and i f t h e meaning o f t h e s t a t u t e c a n be so d e t e r m i n e d , c o u r t s may n o t go f u r t h e r and a p p l y a n y o t h e r means o f i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . H a k e r , s u p r a , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n ; Dunphy, s u p r a , and cases c i t e d t h e r e i n . Thus where t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e is p l a i n , u n a m b i g u o u s , d i r e c t and c e r t a i n , t h e s t a t u t e s p e a k s f o r i t s e l f and t h e r e is n o t h i n g l e f t f o r the court t o construe. therein. Dunphy, s u p r a , and cases c i t e d I n s u c h case, t h e f u n c t i o n of t h i s C o u r t is s i m p l y t o a s c e r t a i n w h a t i n terms or i n s u b s t a n c e is c o n t a i n e d i n t h e s t a t u t e and n o t t o i n s e r t w h a t h a s b e e n o m i t t e d . MCA; , S t a t e e x r e l . Z a n d e r v. District Court (1979), 5 9 1 P.2d 6 5 6 , 6 6 2 , 36 S t . Rep. 489, cases cited therein. S e c t i o n 1-2-101, 496; Dunphy, Mont . s u p r a , and I n sum, it is s i m p l y t h e d u t y of t h e C o u r t t o c o n s t r u e t h e l a w as it f i n d s i t . cited therein. -10 - Dunphy, s u p r a , and cases Here t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c r e a t e d a n a m b i g u i t y i n t h e act by r e f e r r i n g t o i t s t i t l e and t h e n p r o c e e d i n g to a p p l y a v a r i e t y o f e x t r i n s i c r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was n o t v o i d . T h i s it c a n n o t d o . The t i t l e o f a l e g i s l a t i v e a c t c a n n o t be u s e d t o c r e a t e a n a m b i g u i t y i n t h e t e x t o f t h e a c t s o a s t o a u t h o r i z e r e c o u r s e t o e x t r i n s i c r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n . S t a t e e x r e l . P a l a g i v. Regan ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 1 1 3 Mont. 3 4 3 , 351-352, 126 P.2d 8 1 8 , 8 2 4 ; S t a t e e x r e l . J o n e s v. E r i k s o n ( 1 9 2 6 ) , 7 5 Mont. 4 2 9 , 453, 244 P. 2 8 7 , 296. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r e c o u r s e to e x t r i n s i c r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n is b o t t o m e d o n i t s v i e w t h a t o t h e r w i s e t h e s c o p e of t h e s t a t u t e would be " s t u p e n d o u s n and would o u t l a w a l l c o n t r a c t s i n e x c e s s o f t h r e e y e a r s t h r o u g h o u t t h e s t a t e , which is n o t rational. T h i s r a t i o n a l i t y a p p r o a c h is s i m p l y a n e x t r i n s i c a i d t o c o n s t r u c t i o n a v a i l a b l e o n l y w h e r e t h e s t a t u t e is a m b i g u o u s . I t c a n n o t be u s e d t o d e f e a t t h e p l a i n and unambiguous l a n g u a g e of the statute. Our f u n c t i o n h e r e is n o t t o " i m p r o v e " t h e s t a t u t e by r e s o r t to e x t r i n s i c r u l e s of s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n , b u t s i m p l y t o d e c l a r e what i t s language p l a i n l y s t a t e s . The m a j o r i t y a p p e a r s to h a v e t a k e n t h e same c o u r s e as t h e District Court. They, t o o , h a v e g o n e beyond t h e p l a i n meaning of t h e words i n t h e s t a t u t e . I n a t t e m p t i n g to a s c e r t a i n t h e i n t e n - t i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e , t h e m a j o r i t y p o i n t s t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e s t a t u t e as it e x i s t e d a t t h e time t h e s t a t e lease was e x e c u t e d was s i l e n t w i t h r e g a r d t o leases. "contracts," Y e t t h e s t a t u t e r e f e r s to and t h e r e is no d i s p u t e t h a t a lease is a c o n t r a c t . The s t a t u t o r y w o r d s c l e a r l y t e l l u s t h a t a lease is i n c l u d e d i n the statutory prohibition. N e x t t h e m a j o r i t y n o t e s t h a t when t h e l e g i s l a t u r e g a v e t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l t h e power t o e s t a b l i s h t h e LETS s y s t e m by lease o r p u r c h a s e of equipment, t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t p r o v i d e a t i m e l i m i t a t i o n f o r t h o s e c o n t r a c t s , n o r d i d it e x p l i c i t l y make t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s o f s e c t i o n 82-1918 a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e leases o r purchases. do this. I n m view, y it is c l e a r why t h e l e g i s l a t u r e d i d n o t S e c t i o n 82-1918 p r o v i d e s a t h r e e - y e a r - 11- l i m i t a t i o n on s t a t e c o n t r a c t s ; a n a d d i t i o n a l s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n was unnecessary. I n r e s o r t i n g t o these surmises about l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t , t h e m a j o r i t y is i g n o r i n g t h e r u l e s o f s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n as s e t o u t i n D e p a r t m e n t o f Revenue v. P u g e t Sound Power Co., supra. & Light There we s a i d t h a t t h e c o u r t s should f i r s t a t t e m p t t o d e t e r m i n e s t a t u t o r y m e a n i n g from t h e p l a i n words o f t h e statute. F o l l o w i n g t h a t i n q u i r y , t h e c o u r t c a n resort t o t h e legislative history. D e p t . o f Revenue, s u p r a , 5 8 7 P.2d 1 2 8 7 , 35 S t . R e p . a t 1373. t o resort t o l e g i s l a t i v e h i s t o r y . Mont. a t I I n my v i e w , t h e r e is no need The s t a t u t e is c l e a r o n i t s f a c e . I would d e c l a r e t h e c o n t r a c t p r o h i b i t e d by t h e t h r e e - y e a r l i m i t a t i o n and remand t h e case t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r r e f o r m a t i o n on a t h r e e - y e a r basis. Chief J u s t i c e Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n c o n c u r r i n g : I h e a r t i l y c o n c u r i n t h e above d i s s e n t .

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.