MORSE v CREMER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 82-16 I N T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA H F 1982 WILLIAM R. MORSE, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, vs. LEO J. CREMER, J R . , f o r h i m s e l f , i n d i v i d u a l l y and f o r and on b e h a l f of BERTHA R. CREMER, I N C . , e t a l . , D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h 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 P.ark,&-d Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants: B e r g e r , S i n c l a i r & N e l s o n , B i l l i n g s , M.ontana F o r Respondent : D r y s d a l e , McLean, S c r e n a r , Cok & Wheat, Bozeman, Montana S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A p r i l 2 2 , Decided : Filed: m! ! WXL.0 $. ?fwf / Clerk JUW3 0 19bZ 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d the Court. the Opinion W i l l i a m Morse b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y against the defendants. t h e S t a t e of Montana, Sweet G r a s s . named Judgment appellants $13,338.69. fees The c a u s e was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e D i s - t r i c t Court, s i t t i n g without a jury, D i s t r i c t of of for was the i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y o f entered full in the Sixth Judicial for Morse amount of against the all complaint, A l l a p p e l l a n t s a p p e a l t h e judgment. The t h e o r y of respondent's s u i t was f o r an a c c o u n t - ing; b a s i c a l l y f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s rendered over a long period of time to a rancher client. Following numerous m o t i o n s , p r o c e e d i n g s and d i s c o v e r y , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s s u e d a p r e t r i a l o r d e r on A p r i l the pretrial 22, 1981. order a t t o r n e y a t law, The a g r e e d f a c t s a r i s i n g o u t o f were that (1) the an d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana, who performed legal prior the f i l i n g of the action in t h i s matter; to is plaintiff services for the defendants and (2) t h a t $50 p e r h o u r is a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e f o r s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d by r e s p o n d e n t . R e s p o n d e n t i s a l a w y e r i n A b s a r o k e e , Montana, a n d h a s r e p r e s e n t e d a p p e l l a n t s i n v a r i o u s l e g a l m a t t e r s from b e f o r e 1970 t h r o u g h March 1980. During t h i s time a p p e l l a n t s e s t a b l i s h e d an a t t o r n e y / c l i e n t was c l o s e , informal appellants informally. respondent performed s e r v i c e s performed and p e r s o n a l . The work, and the he p r e p a r e d and relationship that Respondent testimony time respondent also indicates billed that, as a slip listing the involved. Each month the s e r v i c e s and t i m e i n v o l v e d were added t o a s i n g l e b i l l . The slips from shown t o a p p e l l a n t s , which the billings were made were and t h e c h a r g e s and s e r v i c e s o v e r t h i s p e r i o d of time were d i s c u s s e d . d e n t d i s p o s e d of A f t e r t h i s was d o n e , r e s p o n - t h e s l i p s and t r a n s f e r r e d a memorandum o f t h e amounts i n v o l v e d t o an a c c o u n t book o f a p p e l l a n t , Leo J. Cremer, Jr., with n o t a t i o n s a s t o t h e l i t i g a t i o n o r s e r v i c e s involved. Testimony appellants a years account the monthly at trial billing. remained indicated At respondent various unpaid and gave times over accumulated the into r a t h e r l a r g e amounts of money w i t h o u t q u e s t i o n s b e i n g r a i s e d by e i t h e r s i d e . When payments were made, t h e y were made by Leo J . C r e m e r , J r . , on h i s r a n c h a c c o u n t . The c h e c k s f r o m Cremer t o r e s p o n d e n t i n d i c a t e d m e r e l y a payment o f f e e s . From A p r i l 1 9 7 7 , u n t i l March 1 9 8 0 , r e s p o n d e n t r e p r e s e n t e d Leo J . C r e m e r , J r . , i n a n a c t i o n e n t i t l e d Cremer v , Cremer ( 1 9 8 1 ) , - Mont. , a c a s e Cremer l o s t , 627 P.2d 1 1 9 9 , 38 St.Rep. 574, D u r i n g t h i s same p e r i o d o f t i m e r e s p o n - d e n t h a n d l e d numerous o t h e r m a t t e r s and a c t i o n s f o r a p p e l lants. owed Respondent him more claims that than $10,000 respondent and i n J a n u a r y 1980 a p p e l l a n t s that $10,000. at that time Respondent Leo J. Cremer paid indicated through an e x h i b i t t h a t a l l a c c o u n t s e x c e p t t h e Cremer v . Cremer c a s e were p a i d t o d a t e by t h e $10,080 payment. Late i n J a n u a r y 1980, a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t r e t u r n t o him $ 5 , 0 8 0 o f Cremer, J r . , t h e $10,000 p a i d e a r l i e r t h a t month. a g r e e d i n w r i t i n g t o r e p a y t h i s sum t o r e s p o n - d e n t b u t d i d n o t do s o . to Leo appellants, At respondent t h e t i m e h e r e t u r n e d t h e money added the $5,000 to the Cremer account a s p a r t of t h e accounts r e c e i v a b l e . Throughout t h i s time t h e i n f o r m a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e p a r t i e s was s u c h services for that respondent a p p e l l a n t s and Cremer c o n t i n u a l l y performed periodically made pay- m e n t s t o r e s p o n d e n t on h i s b e h a l f and on b e h a l f o f t h e o t h e r appellants indicate for that services Respondent's performed. throughout this period, in records addition to his hourly charges f o r h i s services, he r e q u e s t e d and r e c e i v e d from expenditures. appellants costs and other The trial c o u r t found t h e s e e x p e n s e s r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y . I n a d d i t i o n t o h i s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s i n f a v o r of respondent, t h e t r i a l c o u r t j u d g e s u b m i t t e d a memorandum setting out the reasons for noted central issue that whether the the proof 1 0 0 6 , Mont.R.Evid., of the his ruling, was account was a p p l i c a b l e . There how much made under the was court owed Rule and 803 o r The c o u r t n o t e d : "The d e f e n d a n t o b j e c t s t o i t s a d m i s s i o n ; h e i n s i s t s i t is a t t h e b e s t n o t h i n g more t h a n a summary; t h a t t h e o r i g i n a l t i m e and c o s t s s h e e t s a r e t h e o r i g i n a l documents. The e v i d e n c e s h o w s p l a i n t i f f l a w y e r made t h e s e e n t r i e s from t i m e and c o s t s h e e t s and t h e n d e s t r o y e d them! "The C o u r t r e a l i z e d t h i s c o n t e s t on admiss i b i l i t y was c r u c i a l and r u l e d t o t a k e i t u n d e r a d v i s e m e n t , a s k e d f o r b r i e f s and l e t t h e evidence proceed s u b j e c t t o defendants' objection. " I r u l e i t a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 , M.R.Ev. " I t adds nothing t o t h e record t o c r i t i c i z e t h e s l o p p y , m e a n d e r i n g way t h e a c c o u n t i s , b u t t h e r e c o r d is e l o q u e n t t h a t b o t h h o u s e s --both t h e a t t o r n e y ' s and t h e r a n c h e r ' s--were g u i l t y o f t h e same m e t h o d s o f r e c o r d k e e p i n g . The payment o f t h e c h e c k by r a n c h e r t o l a w y e r and p a r t i a l payment back is a b o o k k e e p e r ' s nightmare, I ' v e a t t a c h e d t h e diagram furn i s h e d by p l a i n t i f f t o h i g h l i g h t t h i s t o p s y turvy situation." The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l a r e : 1. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e u n d e r R u l e 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R,Evid. 2. Whether t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s under R u l e 1fl06, Mont .R.Evid. E x h i b i t 1 is a d m i s s i b l e I f r e s p o n d e n t is e n t i t l e d t o judgment, whether he 3. is e n t i t l e d t o judgment a g a i n s t B e r t h a C r e m e r , I n c . , Rodeo Land and L i v e s t o c k , Cremer B e r t h a Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , Crazy Mountain R e s o u r c e s and B e r t h a Cremer. W a f f i r m t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and f i n d i t s a d m i s s i o n e o f t h e e v i d e n c e u n d e r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , Mont,R.Evid., controlling here. R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid,, provides: " H e a r s a y e x c e p t i o n s : a v a i l a b i l i t y of d e c l a r a n t immaterial. "The f o l l o w i n g a r e n o t e x c l u d e d by t h e h e a r s a y r u l e , e v e n t h o u g h t h e d e c l a r a n t is a v a i l able a s a witness: " ( 6 ) Records of r e g u l a r l y conducted a c t i v i t y . memorandum, report, record, or data c o m p i l a t i o n , i n a n y form, o f a c t s , e v e n t s , c o n d i t i o n s , o p i n i o n s , o r d i a g n o s i s , made a t o r n e a r t h e time of t h e a c t s , e v e n t s , condit i o n s , opinions, or diagnosis, i f kept in t h e c o u r s e of a r e g u l a r l y conducted b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y , and i f i t was t h e r e g u l a r p r a c t i c e o f t h a t b u s i n e s s a c t i v i t y t o make t h e memorandum, r e p o r t , r e c o r d , o r d a t a c o m p i l a t i o n , a l l a s shown by t h e t e s t i m o n y o f t h e c u s t o dian or other q u a l i f i e d witness, unless t h e s o u r c e o f t h e i n f o r m a t i o n o r t h e method o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s of p r e p a r a t i o n i n d i c a t e l a c k o f trustworthiness. The t e r m ' b u s i n e s s ' a s u s e d i n t h i s paragraph includes business, i n s t i t u t i o n , association, profession, occupation, and c a l l i n g of e v e r y k i n d , w h e t h e r o r n o t conducted f o r prof it," A Appellants argue t h a t respondent's Exhibit 1 does n o t conform to the requisites of Rule 803 ( 6 ) , Mont.R.Evid., becaus e under t h i s r u l e t h r e e c r i t e r i a m u s t be met b e f o r e the is document admissible to the hearsay document must be a memorandum; (2) t h e memorarldum must be made a t o r n e a r t h e t i m e o f the event; made i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s . and rule: (3) (1) t h e i t must be Appellants argue t h a t t h e second e l e m e n t h a s n o t been s a t i s f i e d h e r e , c i t i n g 30 Am.Jur.2d E v i d e n c e , s e c t i o n 938. A s previously noted, dent and numerous that t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s p o n - a p p e l l a n t s was a c o n t i n u i n g one b r o u g h t l a w s u i t s and a sometimes personal involved daily confidential telephone f r e q u e n t communications. One o f that a p p e l l a n t s was respondent total of had $25,000 with in which a b o u t by relationship calls and other the business relationships respondent a contract would for probate a the e s t a t e s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t and h i s s o n o r w i f e , w h i c h e v e r d i e d first. T h a t c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d f o r a n n u a l payments o f $2,500 a year. Respondent t e s t i f i e d a b o u t h i s bookkeeping methods: "Our o f f i c e procedure involved keeping time and c h a r g e s memorandum on s m a l l memorandum s l i p s t h a t were k e p t f o r t h a t p u r p o s e , on a t e m p o r a r y b a s i s u n t i l s u c h t i m e a s t h e y were transcribed into t h i s ledger. And we u s u a l l y r e t a i n them u n t i l a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e c l i e n t i n c a s e t h e r e is any q u e s t i o n a b o u t it. And a f t e r t h e b i l l i n g t o t h e c l i e n t t h e n o t e s i n v o l v e d t h a t a p p e a r t o be s u p e r f l u o u s , i n c l u d i n g t h e s e , a r e d i s c a r d e d .'I Some of t h e c h a r g e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y f o r a p p e l l a t e work, w e r e a l l o w e d t o a c c r u e f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e b e f o r e t h e y were billed to the client. T h i s bookkeeping system appeared t o be s a t i s f a c t o r y t o a l l c o n c e r n e d u n t i l 1 9 8 0 , when t h e $ 5 , 0 0 0 c h a r g e b a c k came i n t o q u e s t i o n . I n support of h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t E x h i b i t 1 does n o t r e f l e c t t h e t i m e l i n e s s of e n t r y o f t h e d o c u m e n t s r e q u i r e d t o comply w i t h t h e s e c o n d p a r t o f R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) , a p p e l l a n t s r e l y on two c a s e s , 174 P.2d Tabata v. Murane ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 76 Cal.App.2d 6 8 4 , and H a l l m a r k B u i l d e r s , ( T e x , 1 9 7 7 ) , 547 S.W.2d 681. Inc., 887, e t al, v . Anthony In Tabata the c o u r t s t a t e d : "The c o u r t would have been j u s t i f i e d i n r e g a r d i n g t h e w r i t i n g s a s mere f r a g m e n t s o f a n a c c o u n t r e l a t i n g t o o n l y a p a r t of t h e b u s i n e s s d e a l i n g s o f p l a i n t i f f and d e c e d e n t . B e f o r e an a c c o u n t is a d m i s s i b l e i n e v i d e n c e f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f e s t a b l i s h i n g a c a u s e of a c t i o n of an openbook a c c o u n t , i t m u s t b e shown t o h a v e been a c c u r a t e l y k e p t , which was n o t done i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , and i t m u s t b e s o c o m p l e t e a s t o show t h e b a l a n c e o f i n d e b t e d n e s s d u e from o n e p a r t y t o t h e o t h e r , i n which r e s p e c t a l s o p l a i n t i f f ' s e v i d e n c e was deficient." 1 7 4 P,2d a t 686. Here, certain judge while errors found respondent's were that made and the entries testimony later indicated corrected, testified that the t o were trial accurately T h e r e f o r e , T a b a t a is n o t a p p l i c a b l e . made. Hallmark B u i l d e r s , s u p r a , is c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e , In t h a t case, the sale of t h e c o u r t f o u n d t h a t s i n c e some i n v o i c e s f o r building materials were not compiled until s e v e r a l months a f t e r t h e o r d e r had been f i l l e d , t h e i n v o i c e s were n o t admissible. Here, respondent testified s l i p s were i m m e d i a t e l y e n t e r e d i n t o h i s books. that all In addition, t h e b i l l i n g was d i s c u s s e d e a c h month w i t h a p p e l l a n t who was given an opportunity d i s a g r e e with v a r i o u s to, and at times i t e m s a p p e a r i n g on did, the discuss and s l i p s before t h e y were d i s p o s e d o f . This Court appointed a Commission on the Rules of E v i d e n c e and i t s r e p o r t a p p e a r s w i t h R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e i n 3 MCA A n n o t a t i o n s . The e x c e p t i o n to Rule 803(6) relied on h e r e was i d e n t i c a l t o t h a t i n t h e u n i f o r m r u l e s o f e v i d e n c e except for a phrase deleted from r u l e which m i g h t h a v e r e s u l t e d the then indicated records existing that Montana law. the federal rule is uniform in a greater restriction t o The C o m ~ n i s s i o n Comments t h e exception i n Montana's evidence and substantially uniform b u s i n e s s the same as the f e d e r a l r u l e and t h a t Montana h a d , p r i o r t o t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h e new r u l e s , o p e r a t e d u n d e r t h e u n i f o r m a c t . e x c e p t i o n , t h e Commission s a i d i n p a r t : As to this " I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n a l l o w s o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s ( c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d ) t o be a d m i s s i b l e ; t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h K l a u s v. H i l b e r r y , 1 5 7 Mont. 277, 285, 485 P.2d 54 ( 1 9 7 1 ) , which a l l o w e d m e d i c a l r e p o r t s c o n t a i n i n g o p i n i o n s and d i a g n o s i s t o be a d m i t t e d and r e f e r r e d t o S e c t i o n 93-801-2, R.C.M. 1947 [ s u p e r s e d e d ] . I t should a l s o be n o t e d t h a t t h e e x c e p t i o n c o u l d be s e e n a s an e x p a n s i o n o f e x i s t i n g Montana law t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e r e c o r d s o f r e g u l a r l y cond u c t e d a c t i v i t y i n a wide v a r i e t y o f f o r m s , i n c l u d i n g computer p r i n t o u t s a r e a d m i s s i b l e . " 3 MCA A n n o t a t i o n s a t 260. W f i n d t h a t t h e f o u n d a t i o n l a i d f o r a d m i s s i o n of t h e e a c c o u n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e more t h a n s a t i s f i e s t h e r e q u i r e ment o f t h e u n i f o r m a c t o r R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) . pounded by respondent in laying the The q u e s t i o n s p r o foundation a c c o u n t were p r e p a r e d i n w r i t i n g f o r t r i a l for the and were s p e c i - f i c a l l y b a s e d on r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 8 0 3 ( 6 ) a s w e l l a s t h e former uniform a c t . Respondent n o t o n l y covered b u t indeed f u l f i l l e d t h e r e q u i r e m e n t f o r f o u n d a t i o n under t h e r u l e . Respondent relies on Edgewood Lumber Co. v. f o r t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of h i s a c c o u n t i n t h i s c a s e . Hull There, the p l a i n t i f f ' s b o o k k e e p e r made e n t r i e s t o t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s account t e m p o r a r y memorandum c o n s i s t i n g from a of account s h e e t s and t i c k e t s which were d i s p o s e d o f upon t h e e n t r y t o the defendant's account. The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m e d the trial c o u r t erroneously admitted t h e account i n t o evidence because the s l i p s and t i c k e t s were n o t p r o d u c e d account was not the best evidence. and t h e r e f o r e The appellate a f f i r m e d t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , s a y i n g : "Elence, f o l l o w i n g t h e r u l e o f n e c e s s i t y which o r i g i n a t e d t h e a d m i s s i b i l i t y of books of a c c o u n t i n e v i d e n c e , t h e c o u r t s do n o t r e g a r d s u c h t e m p o r a r y memoranda a s t h e o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , b u t look t o t h e permanent r e c o r d s a s s u c h o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , where p r o p e r l y v e r i I t is now w e l l - e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e fied. the court f i r s t p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d s of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s by t h e c r e d i t o r a r e t o be deemed t h e o r i g i n a l e n t r i e s , i f made i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f b u s i n e s s and w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l y s h o r t t i m e a f t e r the t r a n s a c t i o n s themselves, although t h e i t e m s may have been f i r s t e n t e r e d a s a t e m p o r a r y a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e memory upon some s l a t e , book, p a p e r o r o t h e r s u b s t a n c e . I t is o f no c o n s e q u e n c e what t h e m a t e r i a l was on which t h e memoranda were made o r t h e s i z e o r s h a p e of i t , a s l o n g a s i t was a mere m i n u t e , n o t i n t e n d e d t o be p r e s e v e d a s e v i d e n c e i t s e l f o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , b u t t o be used i n p r e p a r a t i o n of s u c h e v i d e n c e . I n such c a s e s t h e books o f a c c o u n t i n t o which t h e e n t r i e s have been t r a n s f e r r e d from t h e t e m p o r a r y means of r e c o r d , and n o t t h e t e m p o r a r y r e c o r d s t h e m s e l v e s , a r e t h e books of o r i g i n a l entries. " ' T h e c h a r a c t e r o f a book a s o n e o f o r i g i n a l e n t r y is n o t a f f e c t e d by t h e mere f a c t t h a t t h e t e m p o r a r y memoranda were made by a p e r s o n o t h e r t h a n t h e o n e who k e p t t h e book o f f e r e d i n t o evidence. I n o t h e r w o r d s , a book o f a c c o u n t made u p i n t h e u s u a l c o u r s e o f business from the slips, reports, or memoranda, f u r n i s h e d by t h e e m p l o y e e s who c o n d u c t e d t r a n s a c t i o n s , which c o n s t i t u t e s t h e f i r s t permanent r e c o r d of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s e n t e r e d i n i t is a book o f o r i g i n a l e n t r y and ~dgewood admissible i n evidence a s such.'" Lumber, 223 S.W.2d a t 212. S e e , J o n e s on E v i d e n c e ( 5 t h e d . 1 9 5 8 ) , s e c t i o n 614. Here, not only was the trial court correct in a d m i t t i n g t h e a c c o u n t u n d e r R u l e 8 8 3 ( 6 ) , i t was a l s o c o r r e c t in i t s f i n d i n g of the work directly, for fact that appellants respondent because from h i s k n o w l e d g e , as a c t u a l l y performed respondent to the testified specific services p e r f o r m e d and t h e s u b s e q u e n t c h a r g e s . S i n c e we f i n d t h e e x h i b i t was p r o p e r l y a d m i t t e d u n d e r Rule 8Pi3, it is n o t necessary to consider whether i t was a d m i s s i b l e under R u l e 1 0 0 6 , Mont.R.Evid. The next issue raised for our consideration w h e t h e r r e s p o n d e n t is e n t i t l e d t o a judgment R. Cremer, Inc., Cremer Rodeo Land and is a g a i n s t Bertha Livestock, Bertha Cremer E n t e r p r i s e s , C r a z y Mountain R e s o u r c e s and ~ e r t h a R. Cremer. W n o t e t h a t t h i s i s s u e is r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t time e on a p p e a l . argument a t t h e time of Cremer's o r d e r was t h a t h e had a l r e a d y p a i d that the services had not the pretrial for these services, been p e r f o r m e d for not the various appellants. Leo J. Cremer, Jr., when called as a witness by res pon d e n t , answered t h e f o l l o w i n g q u e s t i o n : "Q. And i n t h e management o f t h e s e you h a v e d e a l t w i t h them a l l a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e , I h a v e been i n v o l v e d i n h a v e you n o t ? A. a l l o f them, y e s . " H i s testimony, t h a t Leo J, C r e m e r , J r a s w e l l a s other testimony, ., was indicated i n c h a r g e o f t h e management o f a l l t h e v a r i o u s e n t i t i e s named a s d e f e n d a n t s and t h a t t h e y were d e a l t w i t h a s one Cremer e n t e r p r i s e . The f i n a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s t h e e f f e c t o f t h e c o u r t ' s p r e t r i a l o r d e r when i s s u e d . T h i s i s s u e is o f c o n s i d e r a b l e i m p o r t b o t h t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h i s C o u r t i n a r r i v i n g a t our decisions, R u l e 1 6 , M,R.Civ.P., provides: "The c o u r t s h a l l make a n o r d e r which r e c i t e s the action taken a t the conference, the amendments a l l o w e d t o t h e p l e a d i n g s , and t h e a g r e e m e n t s made by t h e p a r t i e s a s t o any o f t h e m a t t e r s c o n s i d e r e d , and which l i m i t s t h e i s s u e s f o r t r i a l t o t h o s e n o t d i s p o s e d of by a d m i s s i o n s o r a g r e e m e n t s of c o u n s e l ; and s u c h o r d e r when e n t e r e d c o n t r o l s t h e s u b s e q u e n t c o u r s e of t h e a c t i o n , u n l e s s m o d i f i e d a t t h e t r i a l to prevent manifest i n j u s t i c e . The c o u r t i n i t s d i s c r e t i o n may e s t a b l i s h by r u l e a p r e t r i a l c a l e n d a r on which a c t i o n s may be p l a c e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n a s above provided and may e i t h e r c o n f i n e t h e c a l e n d a r t o j u r y a c t i o n s o r t o nonjury a c t i o n s o r extend it t o a l l actions," Such an o r d e r was made i n t h i s c a s e and p r o v i d e d pertinent part: in "The f o l l o w i n g f a c t s were a d m i t t e d , a g r e e d t o be t r u e and r e q u i r e no p r o o f . "1. The P l a i n t i f f is a n a t t o r n e y a t l a w , d u l y l i c e n s e d t o p r a c t i c e i n t h e S t a t e of Montana and p e r f o r m e d l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t s , p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n in t h i s matter, "2. T h a t $50.00 p e r h o u r is a r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e f o r s e r v i c e s p e r f o r m e d by Plaintiff. "PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: " P l a i n t i f f ' s contentions are a s follows: "1. P l a i n t i f f is a d u l y l i c e n s e d and p r a c t i c i n g a t t o r n e y i n t h e S t a t e of Montana and performed l e g a l s e r v i c e s f o r t h e Defendants a t t h e r e a s o n a b l e and a g r e e d v a l u e o f $50.00 per hour. "2. T h a t D e f e n d a n t s owe P l a i n t i f f f o r s u c h legal s e r v i c e s t h e sum o f $13,338.69, t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t and c o s t s , "DEFENDANTS ' CONTENTIONS: "Defendants' contentions a r e a s follows: " T h a t D e f e n d a n t s do n o t owe P l a i n t i f f t h e a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s c l a i m e d , o r any a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s , t h e y having f u l l y p a i d P l a i n t i f f f o r a l l l e g a l work c o m p l e t e d by him, o r f o r them, in the past. "ISSUES OF FACT: "The i s s u e s o f f a c t a r e a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e P l a i n t i f f ' s and D e f e n d a n t s ' c o n t e n t i o n s , " From t h e a b o v e p o r t i o n o f view of the f a c t s admitted, t h e p r e t r i a l o r d e r and i n t h e t r i a l c o u r t was l e f t w i t h o n l y two c o n t e n t i o n s t o be p r o v e d by t h e r e s p o n d e n t - - n a m e l y , t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s a g r e e d t o pay t h e $50 a n h o u r and t h a t t h e y owed sole the contention sum o f was $13,338.69 that they plus owed costs. nothing, Appellants1 having fully paid t h e respondent. R e s p o n d e n t 1s testimony is left uncontradicted that t h e a g r e e d v a l u e was i n f a c t $50 p e r h o u r and t h a t h e d i d perform the services of value as contended and a p p e l l a n t s p r o d u c e d no p r o o f w h a t s o e v e r o f payment. on D a v i s v. D a v i s ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 159 Mont. that W rely e 355, 3 6 0 , 497 P.2d 315, 318, i n d e c i d i n g t h i s m a t t e r where t h i s C o u r t h e l d : "The p r e t r i a l o r d e r s e t t i n g f o r t h d e f e n d a n t ' s contentions indicates that the contracts u n d e r which t h e p l a i n t i f f s were employed were t e r m i n a b l e a t w i l l , and m a i n t a i n s a d e n i a l o f any of p l a i n t i f f s ' alleged c o n t r a c t s with defendant. T h i s Court is compelled t o a g r e e w i t h p l a i n t i f f s 1 argument t h a t i t s t a n d s t o r e a s o n i f t h e r e were no c o n t r a c t s t h e r e c o u l d be no b r e a c h e s , and i f t h e a g r e e m e n t s were terminable a t w i l l , t h e p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o t e r m i n a t e a t a n y t i m e t h e y saw fit. However, of more c r u c i a l w e i g h t i s t h e p r o c e d u r a l p r o c e s s which r e c o g n i z e s t h a t t h e i s s u e s of w a i v e r and b r e a c h were n o t made i s s u e s a t t h e t r i a l and t h u s may n o t be i n t r o d u c e d on a p p e a l . T h i s C o u r t h a s s a i d on numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t i t w i l l c o n s i d e r f o r review only those q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d i n t h e t r i a l court. [Citing cases.]" Here t h e s t a t e o f t h e r e c o r d and t h e p r o o f produced a t t r i a l s u p p o r t s t h e c o u r t l s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and judgment. The judgment is a f f i r m e d . , . Justice W concur: e /

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.