1ST NAT BANK v SECURITY BANK
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-301 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF P4ONTANA 1982 FIRST NATIONAL BANK WIBAUX, et al., & TRUST OF Plaintiffs and Respondents, SECURITY BANK, N. A. AMBROSE H. HEIMER, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Ay2eal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable, M. James Sorte, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Ralph L. Herriott, Billings, Montana Joseph F. Meglen, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Towe, Ball, Enright and Mackey, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: JUL 12 1 8 92 March 5, 1982 July 12, 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n the Court. This appeal arises four promissory notes, from delivered an t h r e e of action the Opinion recovery for of on w h i c h were s i g n e d a n d e x e - c u t e d b y a p p e l l a n t , Ambrose Heimer, a n d t h e f o u r t h o f w h i c h was s i g n e d a n d e x e c u t e d b y J o s e p h Heimer a n d g u a r a n t e e d b y Ambrose Heimer ?'he First . original National complaint Bank p l a i n t i f f s were and added was Trust of filed June Wibaux. subsequently. 9, 1978, The After by remaining preliminary p l e a d i n g s t r i a l was s e t f o r May 1 4 , 1 9 7 9 . In response t o interrogatories of Ambrose Heimer s t a t e d , February 7, " D e f e n d a n t Ambrose Heimer i n t e n d s t o make Edward Towe a d e f e n d a n t by way o f c r o s s - c l a i m this. 1979, to assert " The o r i g i n a l t r i a l d a t e was v a c a t e d leave to i n May 1 9 7 9 a n d f i l e a n amended c o m p l a i n t p u r s u a n t o f t h e p a r t i e s was g r a n t e d S e p t e m b e r 4 , d e p o s i t i o n was t a k e n J u l y 2 , 1980. 1979. to stipulation Edward T o w e ' s A tentative trial date i n O c t o b e r was v a c a t e d b e c a u s e o f i l l n e s s o f c o u n s e l , a n d i n A u g u s t 1 9 8 0 a new t r i a l d a t e was s e t f o r S e p t e m b e r 11. On S e p t e m b e r 4 , Heimer f i l e d a m o t i o n f o r c o n t i n u a n c e s u p p o r t e d by an affidavit of Ralph Herriott, appellants' counsel, c l a i m i n g G r a n t I n v e s t m e n t Funds is a p a r t n e r s h i p and n o t a l l partners had been joined in the l a w s u i t and a l s o clainning n o t a l l o f t h e r e a l p a r t i e s i n i n t e r e s t h a d b e e n made p a r t y to the lawsuit. The m o t i o n was g r a n t e d , d a t e s e t f o r September 30. a n d a new t r i a l T h a t t r i a l d a t e was v a c a t e d o n S e p t e m b e r 1 0 and r e s e t f o r November 2 4 , a n d t h e p a r t i e s w e r e o r d e r e d t o c o m p l e t e d i s c o v e r y b y November 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 . On November 10, 1980, d e f e n d a n t s Ambrose and J o s e p h Heimer filed a n amended a n s w e r , claim, cross-complaint District Court amended answer, by o r d e r o f which respondents' cross-complaint 1980, and judgment a counter- a n d two t h i r d p a r t y c o m p l a i n t s . granted November included 24. and motion third T r i a l was strike the party complaints held entered i n favor of to The o n November 24, r e s p o n d e n t s o n March 3 , 1981. Appellants set out (1) W h e t h e r Court: three issues for review by this the District Court erred in f a i l i n g t o a l l o w Ambrose Heimer t o j o i n Edward Towe a n d J a m e s U p d i k e a s third party defendants; ( 2 ) w h e t h e r t h e named p l a i n t i f f s a r e real parties in interest; 18% of and (3) whether a t t o r n e y f e e s of t h e amount d u e o n t h e p r o m i s s o r y n o t e s w e r e p r o p e r l y assessed. The s o u r c e o f t h e f i r s t i s s u e i s a p p e l l a n t s ' answer two which third November included party 10, a counterclaim, complaints. 1980, included The amended cross-complaint amended answer, and dated t h i r d p a r t y c o ~ n p l a i n t sa g a i n s t Edward Towe and l a t e r J a m e s U p d i k e . In granting respondents' lants' amended a n s w e r , plaints, motion t o s t r i k e t h e appel- including the two third party com- the District Court determined t h a t t h e contentions p r o p o s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s c o n s t i t u t e d , " a t b e s t , " a permis- s i v e p l e a d i n g " t h e s u b s t a n c e o f w h i c h would n o t b e e f f e c t e d by n o t i n c l u d i n g i t i n t h e p r e s e n t t r i a l . " Respondents argue t h a t s i n c e t h e amended a n s w e r w a s f i l e d more t h a n t w e n t y d a y s a f t e r l e a v e of i t was s e r v e d a n d w i t h o u t t h e c o u r t o r w r i t t e n c o n s e n t of i t was n o t p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . the adverse party, R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. R e s p o n d e n t s a l s o a r g u e t h e a t t e m p t t o add a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s w a s d e f e c t i v e f o r t h e same r e a s o n s u n d e r R u l e 2 1 , M.R.Civ.P. Even if t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a d moved t h e c o u r t p r o p e r l y t o amend t h e p l e a d i n g s a n d a d d a d d i t i o n a l in respon- t h e District Court properly exercised its d i s - dents claim, cretion parties, granting the motion to strike in that the amendment was u n t i m e l y . previously noted, As included a cross-complaint, appellants' amended a n s w e r c o u n t e r c o m p l a i n t , a n d two t h i r d S i n c e t h e s e v a r i o u s c o m p l a i n t s were n o t p a r t y complaints. severed the from one a n o t h e r and were included a s p a r t of amended a n s w e r R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ . P . , the governs. A p p e l l a n t s f i l e d t h e i r amended a n s w e r o n November 1 0 , 1980. which Respondents subsequently is t h e o n l y method o f pleading h a s been filed 414, motion to strike d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r a n amended improperly f i l e d . C o u r t ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 1 1 8 Mont. a 1 6 7 P.2d C o r p . v . B o u c h e r ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 9 3 Mont. Westlake v. 588; District Paramount P u b l i x 3 4 8 , 1 9 P.2d 2 2 3 . is s e r v e d o r twenty d a y s After a responsive pleading a f t e r a n o r i g i n a l p l e a d i n g is s e r v e d , a p a r t y may amend h i s p l e a d i n g o n l y by l e a v e o f c o u r t o r by w r i t t e n c o n s e n t o f t h e adverse party. R u l e 1 5 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. Appellants here d i d not have w r i t t e n consent of re- s p o n d e n t s a n d f i l e d t h e i r amendment w i t h o u t l e a v e o f c o u r t . Therefore, the District Court did not err in granting the whether the m o t i o n t o s t r i k e t h e amended a n s w e r . The named second plaintiffs, (hereinafter First issue be considered F i r s t National National), F o u n d a t i o n and G r a n t t h i s action. to Investment Bank Richey Fund, and is Trust of Wibaux Towe National Bank, are parties real in The District Court's this if they of will fact supported by be by evidence. W a s h i n g t o n W a t e r a n d Power v . Morgan E l e c t r i c Co. 1 2 6 , 448 P.2d are not disturbed ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 2 Mont. Court findings the 6 8 3 ; R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t F i r s t N a t i o n a l was t h e holder of question title legal and to it that regarding each note. each holds of the trust promissory authority notes and in powers The c o u r t c o n c l u d e d t h a t F i r s t N a t i o n a l was t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t a n d was e n t i t l e d to receive t h e m o n i e s owed u n d e r e a c h p r o m i s s o r y n o t e . W e find substantial evidence both in the transcript and t h e e x h i b i t s s u p p o r t i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m its finding. Appellants also claim a s error award of a t t o r n e y f e e s . f e e s of note. 10% of the the District Court's The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a w a r d e d a t t o r n e y unpaid principal and interest T h i s was t h e minimum a m o u n t a g r e e d upon of each i n each of t h e n o t e s a n d was a l s o s u p p o r t e d b y a n h o u r l y d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f a t t o r n e y time b y r e s p o n d e n t s ' The determination of counsel. reasonable attorney fees is w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t and w i l l n o t b e changed discretion unless abuse of Montarla D e p t . o f S t a t e L a n d s ( 1 9 8 2 ) , - Mont. 1 1 7 8 , 39 S t . R e p . Mont. 307, 773; 528 P.2d 3 5 0 , 1 0 0 P.2d 935. A£ f i rmed . G l i c k v. 686; K a d i l l a k v. i s shown. -, S t a t e o f Montana 6 4 3 P.2d (1974), 165 L u e b b e n v . M e t l e n ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 0 Mont. W e f i n d no a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n h e r e . We concur: x&P,w6.d& Chief Justice Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly dissenting: I would reverse. Justice //
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.
