MILLER v WATKINS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-422 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F BOB EIILLER, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -VS- B I L L WATKINS a n d LAVONNE WATKINS, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I h a n d f o r t h e County o f M u s s e l s h e l l , The H o n o r a b l e Nat A l l e n , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l of Record: For Appellant: L e a p h a r t Law F i r m ; C . W. Montana Leaphart, Jr., Helena, For Respondents : Susan S t e a r n s , Lakewood, C o l o r a d o S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : Decided: Filed: S i p 3 0 1982 J u l y i 5 , 1982 September 3 0 , 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Court Fred . Bob action Miller, in the J. Weber delivered plaintifi District and Court D i s t r i c t , t 4 u s s e l s h e l l County, of B i l l Watkins, contract. unjust enrichment, appellant, of the of the brought Fourteentl? this Judicial t o r e c o v e r damages f o r b r e a c h d e f e n d a n t and respondent, c o u n t s of M i l l e r ' s c o m p l a i n t . against Miller Opinion pled a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n f o r a l l t h e a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e of claim the for Watkins a l s o f i l e d a c o u n t e r - damages malicious for breach prosecution, of and contract, defamation. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y f o u n d i n f a v o r o f Watkins Miller denying relief on a l l $1,500 p a y m e n t d u e o n o n e h o r s e . counts except for a The c o u r t a w a r d e d W a t k i n s a c t u a l damages on t h e b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t f o r $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 ; a c t u a l damages in $30,000; conjunction with the malicious prosecution of a c t u a l damages f o r l i b e l and s l a n d e r i n t h e amount of $25,000; and p u n i t i v e damages i n t h e amount of $50,000. Miller appeals. W affirm. e The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d : (1) N a s trial substantial t o support the credible f i n d i n g s of evidence fact and presented at c o n c l u s i o n s of law? ( 2 ) Were t h e e l e m e n t s n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v e a m a l i c i o u s prosecution action present? (3) Was evidence presented to support the damage awards? Bill jointly and LaVonne Watkins are husband own a n d o p e r a t e a p u b l i c s t a b l e . and breeding, training, raising, racing and Watkins h a n d l e s a l l phases of t h e business concerning t h e horses, the wife and including buying and s e P l l n g of the horses. He owns s e v e r a l q u a l i t y s t a l l i o n s which h e k e e p s a s s t u d s f o r b r e e d i n g p u r p o s e s and h e is a member i n good s t a n d i n g o f t h e A m e r i c a n Q u a r t e r H o r s e Assoc i a t i o n (AQHA). M i l l e r owns a n d o p e r a t e s a r a n c h n e a r J o r d a n , Montana, in Garfield County, r a i s i n g horses. which were and Prior registered engaged is t o 1969, with the in Miller business of owned many h o r s e s However, AQHA. M l l l e r was s u s p e n d e d f r o m t h e AQHA f o r r i g h t t o have h i s h o r s e s r e g i s t e r e d . the in 1969, l i f e and lost the I n l a t e 1968 o r e a r l y 1969, p r i o r t o h i s s u s p e n s i o n , Miller t r a n s f e r r e d o w n e r s h i p of all of relatives, his Dr. registered quarter Purdom and D r . horses Shreeves of to two of his California, and e n t e r e d i n t o a p a r t n e r s h i p a g r e e m e n t w i t h them a s a p a r t o f the transf er . J a c k i e Oakes, Miller, who a/k/a is c u r r e n t l y Jackie known Fleming, a/k/a Jackie a s Jackie Kerrick (Jackie O a k e s ) , i s a member of t h e AQHA and h a s n o t b e e n s u s p e n d e d from membership t h e r e i n . became acquainted I n 1 9 7 2 , J a c k i e Oakes and M i l l e r through various horse deals and soon t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d i n t o a p a r t n e r s h i p a r r a n g e m e n t f o r buying and s e l l i n g h o r s e s . In 1972, Milier was D r s . Purdom and S h r e e v e s . experiencing difficulties with H e ended h i s p a r t n e r s h i p w i t h t h e d o c t o r s and had t h e r e g i s t r a t i o n o f a l l o f t h e h o r s e s t r a n s f e r r e d t o J a c k i e Oakes. I t was a t t h i s t i m e t h a t M i l l e r and J a c k i e Oakes e n t e r e d i n t o some t y p e o f a b u s i n e s s a r r a n g e ment r e g a r d i n g t h e o w n e r s h i p of spring, AQHA. t h e h o r s e s and t h e i r o f f - s i n c e J a c k i e Oakes c o u l d r e g i s t e r I n 1971 o r 1972, horses with the forty t o f i f t y registered quarter horses were moved to Miller's ranch near Jordan. Prior to the year 1974, Jackie commenced residing with Miller, and the two parties held themselves out to the general public as man and wife, with each authorized to transact business for and on behalf of the other with regard to the horses. During the fall of 1974, Miller and Jackie took a trip to Watkins' ranch. his wife and partner Miller introduced Jackie as indicating that Jackie had full authority to transact business regarding the horses owned jointly by herself and relationship, as well Miller. During Miller as her pursuant personal to her business relationship with that meeting, Watkins entered contract with Miller and Jackie, by into a which Watkins would breed the Miller-Bakes mares with his stallions. The colts born of that arrangement would be registered quarter horses and would be split equally between Watkins and Miller-Oakes. The contract was renewed annually for three years and Miller-Oakes brought mares to the Watkins ranch in 1975, 1976, and 1977. On October 8, 1974, the Cloverleaf brand, which was owned by Miller or by the Cloverleaf Land and Livestock Company, a Montana corporation, of which Miller was either the sole or majority shareholder, was transferred to Jackie Oakes and recorded in the Montana Brand Off ice. After the brand had been transferred to Jackie Oakes, various colts and yearlings were branded with the Cloverleaf brand. In the spring of 1975, pursuant to the breeding agreement, twenty-one head of Miller-Oakes mares were delivered to Watkins' ranch for the purpose of breeding. Several Miller-Oakes colts were either by the side of the mares at the time they were delivered U u r i n g t h e summer of colts, wlth the or born 1975, a l l of exception of t h e s p r i n g of one 1976, a Watkins' ranch. t h e m a r e s and a l l of which ranch, were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r and/or In at died at the Watkins' J a c k i e Oakes. total f o u r t e e n Miller- of Oakes m a r e s were d e l i v e r e d t o W a t k i n s ' r a n c h f o r t h e p u r p o s e o i breeding. Some o f t h e m a r e s h a d c o l t s by t h e i r s i d e a n d some o f t h e m a r e s f o a l e d d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1 9 7 6 . these c o l t s were the result of the breeding of A l l of the 1975 s e a s o n and w e r e " p a r t n e r s h i p c o l t s " p u r s u a n t t o t h e a g r e e ment o f the parties. Fifteen C e r t i f i c a t e s were Breeder's i s s u e d by W a t k i n s i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a t o t a l o f f i f t e e n c o l t s had b e e n b o r n a s a r e s u l t o f t h e 1 9 7 5 b r e e d i n g s e a s o n . A l l of t h e Miller-Oakes m a r e s and a l l o f t h e p a r t n e r - s h i p c o l t s were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r and/or J a c k i e Oakes, w i t h the exception of two of the partnership r e t a i n e d by W a t k i n s a s a d i s t r i b u t i o n . c o l t s which One of were these c o l t s which was r e t a i n e d was t h e Wicked F e l i t a c o l t . I n t h e s p r i n g of 1977, a t o t a l of mares were d e l i v e r e d poses. 3nce again, t o Watkins' some o f t h i r t y Miller-Oakes ranch for t h e m a r e s had breeding colts a t purtheir s l d e and o t h e r s f o a l e d a t W a t k i n s ' r a n c h d u r i n g t h e b r e e d i n g season. a l l of D u r i n g t h e summer o f 1 9 7 7 , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n b r e d , t h e mares with t h e i r c o l t s ( a l l c o l t s being p a r t n e r - s h i p c o l t s ) were r e t u r n e d t o M i l l e r ' s ranch i n J o r d a n . The M i l l e r - O a k e s ranch during the mares were n o t d e l i v e r e d t o W a t k i n s ' spring of 1978, as Watkins c o n t i n u e b r e e d i n g t h e m a r e s f o r two r e a s o n s . dissatisfied pursuant to with the the failure agreement, to divide and s e c o n d l y , refused to F i r s t , h e was the colt crops Miller a n d Oakes had failed colts, to take the necessary steps to t h e r e b y b r e a c h i n g t h e i r p o r t i o n of t h e c o l t s less valuable. rendering Miller-Oakes register the t h e c o n t r a c t and Further, p a r t n e r s h i p had d i s i n t e g r a t e d . by 1 9 7 8 , the J a c k i e was n o l o n g e r r e s i d i n g w i t h M i l l e r and e v i d e n t l y was n o t a p a r t o f h i s b u s i n e s s arrangements. of M i l l e r ' s b u s i n e s s , Once J a c k i e was no l o n g e r a p a r t i t was v e r y d o u b t f u l t h a t c o l t s b o r n from t h e b r e e d i n g a r r a n g e m e n t s c o u l d e v e r be r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e AQHA s i n c e M i l l e r was s u s p e n d e d f r o m t h a t o r g a n i z a t i o n . A s i d e from t h e d i s p u t e o v e r t h e s p l i t t i n g o f t h e p a r t nership colts, a l s o claimed Miller t h a t Watkins had p u r - chased s e v e r a l h o r s e s from Miller-Oakes, never been compensated f o r t h e h o r s e s . and t h a t M i l l e r had Watkins on t h e o t h e r hand a l l e g e d a c c o r d and s a t i s f a c t i o n by r e a s o n o f p a y m e n t i n f u l l i n h i s answer w i t h r e s p e c t t o e a c h o f t h e s e h o r s e s . In J u n e 1 9 7 8 , Miller a p p r o a c h e d two b r a n d i n s p e c t o r s a l l e g i n g t h a t W a t k i n s had s t o l e n t h e s e h o r s e s . together with Miller, approached The b r a n d i n s p e c t o r s , the county attorneys in M u s s e l s h e l l and F e r g u s C o u n t i e s , r e s u l t i n g i n t h e f i l i n g o f three criminal actions against Watkins for horse theft. Each o f t h e c r i m i n a l a c t i o n s was d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e . As ciairned a r e s u l t of for requesting Miller's malicious actual and complaint, prosection, punitive vdatkins c l a i m e d a c t u a l damages f o r Watkins counter- libel damages. and slander, In addition, failure t o receive h i s s h a r e of t h e p a r t n e r s h i p c o l t s , a s w e l l a s f o r h i s e x p e n s e s and a c t u a l damages i n c a r e , f e e d i n g a n d b r e e d i n g o f M i l l e r ' s horses. I Was s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law? Miller and Watkins b a s e s h i s a r g u m e n t on h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t h e "are really two old horse thieves" and that n e i t h e r c a n r e a l l y be b e l i e v e d and t h a t t h e t h i r d p r i n c i p a l witness, and J a c k i e Oakes, admits County. lying to h a s a n e x t r e m e l y u n r e l i a b l e memory the county attorney of Musselshell T h e r e was a l s o t e s t i m o n y t h a t some o f t h e b i l l s o f s a l e w e r e p r e p a r e d a s l a t e a s 1 9 7 8 i n a m o t e l room. " T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i e r o f f a c t . W e w i l l c o n s i d e r o n l y whether s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence supports t h e findings and c o n c l u s i o n s . Findings w i l l n o t be o v e r t u r n e d u n l e s s t h e r e is a c l e a r p r e p o n d e r a n c e of e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t them, r e c o g n i z i n g t h a t e v i d e n c e may b e weak o r conflicting, yet still support the findings. [Citation omitted.] The j u d g m e n t o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s presumed c o r r e c t , and t h i s C o u r t w i l l d r a w e v e r y l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e t o support t h a t presumption." J e n s e n v. J e n s e n ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont I 629 P . 2 d 7 6 5 , 7 6 8 , 38 st.= 927, 9 3 0 . . In addition, evidence be will viewed in the light most favorable t o the prevailing party: "When t h i s C o u r t r e v i e w s e v i d e n c e , i t w i l l b e viewed i n t h e l i g h t m o s t f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p a r t y who p r e v a i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and t h e c r e d i b i l i t y o f w i t n e s s e s and t h e w e i g h t a s s i g n e d t o t h e i r t e s t i m o n y is f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t I n a n o n j u r y t r i a l . " P a r k h i l l v. F u s e l i e r (1981)t Mon t , 632 P.2d 1 1 3 2 , 1424,1427. 1135, 3 8 = . ~ e p . . R u l e 5 2 ( a ) , Fi.H.Civ.P., provides i n part: " F i n d i n g s of f a c t s h a l l n o t be s e t a s i d e u n l e s s c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s , and d u e r e g a r d s h a l l be g i v e n t o t h e o p p o r t u n i t y of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o judge t h e c r e d i b i l i t y of witnesses." Although reviewed the there was conflicting record and hold that testimony, there was c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e f i n d i n g s of we have sufficient the District C o u r t b o t h i n d i s m i s s i n g t h e plaintiff's c l a i m a n d i n r u l i n g i n f a v o r of t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o u n t e r c l a i m . 11 Were the elements necessary to prove a malicious and punitive prosecution action present? Watkins' counterclaim requested actual damages f r o m M i l l e r f o r t h e m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c t i o n o f c r i m i n a l actions against him. To prove a malicious prosecution a c t i o n a g a i n s t M i l l e r , W a t k i n s h a d t h e b u r d e n t o show t h a t : 1. A c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g was i n s t i t u t e d or c o n t i n u e d by M i l l e r a g a i n s t W a t k i n s ; 2. The c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s w e r e t e r m i n a t e d i n f a v o r of Watkins; 3. T h e r e was a n a b s e n c e o f probable cause for the c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s ; and 4. that of Miller. T h e r e was m a l i c e o r a p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n bringing a criminal to justice on the part of O r s e r v . S t a t e ( 1 9 7 8 1 , 1 7 8 Mont. 1 2 6 , 1 3 5 , 582 P.2d 1 2 2 7 , 1232-1233; W. Prosser, The Law o f T o r t s , S 1 1 9 a t 8 3 5 ( 4 t h ed. 1971). Criminal complaints filed against Watkins were as ~ollows: 1. Musselshell County--three counts ot theft ( c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1065) a. b. Wicked F e l i t a c o l t c. 2. M u r r i e t t a Grey Black Deckette M u s s e l s h e l l County--one a c t i o n 1077) a. B e a n ' s mare count of theft (criminal 3. F e r y u s County--four counts of t h e f t : a. Twig D e c k g e l d i n g ( s o l d by W a t k i n s t o Brad b. P i s t o l Bar g e l d i n g ( s o l d by W a t k i n s t o Brad c. One g e l d i n g s o l d by W a t k i n s t o O s c a r W a l t e r d. One g e l d i n g s o l d by W a t k i n s t o O s c a r W a l t e r Hamlett) Hamlett) C r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s i n s t i t u t e d o r ----------- ------c o n t i n u e d by M i l l e r a g a i n s t Watkins. M i l l e r contends t h a t he d i d n o t i n s t i t u t e o r continue proceedings a g a i n s t Watkins b u t t h a t he merely gave brand inspectors information i n an e f f o r t t o cooperate with the authorities animals brand. relative to i n possession During the the of investigation third trial, and identified p a r t i e s which c a r r i e d h i s Miller admitted going to the M u s s e l s h e l l County a t t o r n e y and i n f o r m i n g him t h a t W a t k i n s had s t o l e n h i s h o r s e s and e x p e c t i n g t h a t b a t k i n s would b e charged with t h e f t . investigator for Miller a l s o c o n t a c t e d J a c k Sedgwick, a n t h e Montana D e p a r t m e n t o f Livestock, and i n f o r m e d him and t h e M u s s e l s h e l l C o u n t y s h e r i f f t h a t W a t k i n s had h i s m a r e . W e hold t h a t Miller did institute and continue the c r i m i n a l charges a g a i n s t Watkins. Termination i n Watkins' favor. The n e x t e l e m e n t i n a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c t i o n a c t i o n i s t e r m i n a t i o n of the proceedings The l J l u s s e l s h e l 1 County and i n favor of Fergus County the plaintiff. complaints wers dismissed with p r e j u d i c e f o r l a c k of a speedy t r i a l . M i l l e r contends t h a t t h i s t y p e of d i s m i s s a l is n o t i n favor of Watkins because i t does n o t r e f l e c t h i s innocence. I n L a c h n e r v. L a C r o i x ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 159 C a l . R p t r . 6 0 2 P.2d 693, 695, 393, 395, t h e C a l i f o r n i a C o u r t s t a t e d : " I t is n o t e s s e n t i a l t o m a i n t e n a n c e o f a n action for malicious prosecution t h a t the p r i o r p r o c e e d i n g was f a v o r a b l y t e r m i n a t e d f o l l o w i n g t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s . However, t e r m i n a t i o n m u s t r e f l e c t on t h e m e r i t s o f the underlying action. A dismissal d o e s ref o r f a i l u r e t o prosecute f l e c t on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e a c t i o n The r e f l e c t i o n a r i s e s f r o m t h a t n a t u r a l assumption t h a t one d o e s n o t simply abandon a m e r i t o r i o u s a c t i o n once i n s t i tuted." (Underscoring added.) . .. . . ... W agree with the California Court t h a t a dismissal e f o r l a c k of s p e e d y t r i a l d o e s r e f l e c t o n t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e and c a n be c o n s i d e r e d as a termination in favor of Watkins. P r o b a b l e Cause Probable g r o u n d of cause suspicion, has been defined as "a reasonable s u p p o r t e d by c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a n o r d i n a r y p r u d e n t man i n b e l i e v i n g t h e p a r t y i s g u i l t y of t h e o f f e n s e . I t i n c l u d e s an h o n e s t b e l i e f g u i l t of since the accused, the reasonable man in the will not p r o s e c u t e a n o t h e r whom h e d o e s n o t b e l i e v e t o be g u i l t y . " Prosser, § 119 a t 8 4 1 . During the trial Niller admitted that he sold the B e a n ' s mare and t h e Twig Deck g e l d i n g o u t r i g h t t o W a t k i n s . M i l l e r knew t h a t t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e F e r g u s C o u n t y c r i m i n a l c o m p l a i n t r e g a r d i n g t h e Twig D e c k o r f o r o n e c o u n t o f c r i m i n a l a c t i o n 1077 r e g a r d i n g B e a n ' s mare i n M u s s e l s h e l l cou*ty. The o t h e r t h r e e g e l d i n g s which c o m p r i s e t h e F e r g u s C o u n t y c r i m i n a l a c t i o n w e r e s o l d t o W a t k i n s by J a c k i e Oakes. W a t k i n s p a i d J a c k i e Oakes $750 f o r t h e s e t h r e e g e l d i n g s a n d e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e s t h a t M i l l e r knew a b o u t t h i s transaction. T h u s , t h e r e was no b a s i s f o r t h e c r i m i n a l I a c t i o n i n F e r g u s County. With County, regard to Another count traded Oakes one to count criminal concerned Watkins, in action action Black and 1065 i n which Jackie the trade. t h e Wicked Felita Deckette, Miller Musselshell knew 1065 concerned of c o l t which Watkins took a s a p a r t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of a c o l t c r o p and M i l l e r r e c e i v e d a c o l t from Toi T w i s t o u t of same t r a n s a c t i o n . The final the T h i s d i v i s i o n was made by J a c k i e Oakes. count of criminal action 1065 concerned M u r r i e t t a Grey. The e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d that knew and a p p r o v e d o f Bob M i l l e r M u r r i e t t a Grey. involving From t h e t e s t i m o n y p r e s e n t e d a t t r i a l , D i s t r i c t C o u r t was j u s t i f i e d no p r o b a b l e the trade cause for the i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t t h e r e was Miller to institute these actions a g a i n s t W a t k i n s , a n d f u r t h e r , n o h o n e s t b e l i e f by M i l l e r o f t h e g u i l t of Watkins. Maiice a s a P r e r e q u i s i t e The f o u r t h e l e m e n t n e c e s s a r y i n a m a l i c i o u s p r o s e c u t i o n a c t i o n is m a l i c e o r a p r i m a r y p u r p o s e o t h e r t h a n t h a t of b r i n g i n g a n o f f e n d e r t o j u s t i c e . I n t h i s c a s e , t h e r e was a c l e a r l a c k of p r o b a b l e c a u s e f o r c r i m i n a l p r o c e e d i n g s a s pointed out i n the p r i o r section. from want of p r o b a b l e c a u s e . , - Mont. - 6 0 3 P.2d 253, addition, Miller's testimony Malice can be i n f e r r e d McGuire v . 255, 36 S t . R e p . indicated Armitage (1979), 2142, 2145. that he was In aware t h a t o n e h o r s e h a d b e e n t r a d e d by J a c k i e O a k e s , y e t h e t o l d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y o f M u s s e l s h e l l C o u n t y t h a t t h e h o r s e was stolen, f u l l y e x p e c t i n g Watkins t o be charged w i t h Sufficient evidence was conclude t h a t Pliller's presented to show m a l i c e theft. and to i n t e n t was n o t t o b r i n g a n o f f e n d e r t o justice. Was e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o s u p p o r t t h e damage a w a r d s ? The j u d g m e n t o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : "That t h e Court f u r t h e r f i n d i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f l i a b l e t o the defendants i n the amount o f Twenty-three Thousand and no/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 2 3 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) f o r a c t u a l damages f o r c o n t r a c t on t w e n t y - t h r e e c o l t s , T h i r t y T h o u s a n d a n d no/100 D o l l a r s ($30,000.00) f o r a c t u a l damages as a r e s u l t of t h e malicious prosecution, T w e n t y - f i v e T h o u s a n d a n d no/100 D o l l a r s ($25,000.00) a c t u a l damages f o r l i b e l and s l a n d e r , a n d F i f t y T h o u s a n d a n d no/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 ) p u n i t i v e damages f o r i n t e n t i o n a l u t t e r a n c e s ; and "That t h e defendants having incurred n e c e s s a r y c o s t s i n t h e p r o s e c u t i o n of t h i s l a w s u i t i n t h e amount o f S i x Hundred Twenty-seven and 14/100 Dollars ($627.14); and "That t h e d e f e n d a n t s being e n t i t l e d t o t e n p e r c e n t ( 1 0 % ) i n t e r e s t p e r annum upon t h e t o t a l amount o f t h i s J u d g m e n t , s u c h i n t e r e s t t o commence w i t h t h e d a t e o f f i l i n g t h i s Judgment, and good c a u s e appearing. "NOW, THEREFORE, I T I S HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED t h a t J u d g m e n t b e e n t e r e d f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s and a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e sum o f One Hundred T w e n t y - e i g h t T h o u s a n d S i x Hundred Twentys e v e n a n d 14/100 D o l l a r s ( $ 1 2 8 , 6 2 7 . 1 4 ) , a s set f o r t h above, less $1500.00 t h a t D e f e n d a n t s owe P l a i n t i f f , m a k i n g t h e t o t a l j u d g m e n t One Hundred T w e n t y - s e v e n ' r h o u s a n d , One Hundred T w e n t y - s e v e n a n d 14/100 D o l l a r s ($127,127.14)." Section recover than he a greater could both s i d e s 27-1-303, have . . ." amount MCA, provides: for t h e breach g a i n e d by "NO of an f u l l performance person can obligation thereof on F i f t e e n c o l t s w e r e b o r n as a r e s u l t o f t h e 1 9 7 5 b r e e d i n g a s e v i d e n c e d by t h e B r e e d e r ' s C e r t i f i c a t e s f o r t h a t p a r t i c u l a r year introduced i n t o evidence. of F a c t No. 22 p r o v i d e d : Finding " T h a t t h e r e was n o d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e by e i t h e r s i d e a s t o t h e e x a c t number o f t h e c o l t s b o r n a s a r e s u l t of t h e 1 9 7 6 o r t h e 1 9 7 7 I t was e v i d e n c e d t h a t a breeding. n i n e t y - t w o p e r c e n t ( 9 2 % ) c o l t c r o p would be e x p e c t e d , however, i n l i g h t o f poor range conditions a t t h e Miller ranch, t o g e t h e r w i t h improper c a r e of the animals, an e i g h t y p e r c e n t (80%) c o l t c r o p s h o u l d b e t h e minimum e x p e c t e d . That u t i l i z i n g t h e e i g h t y p e r c e n t (80%) f i g u r e , t h e r e should have been a t o t a l o f e l e v e n (11) c o l t s f o r t h e 1 9 7 6 b r e e d i n g and a t o t a l o f t w e n t y - f o u r ( 2 4 ) c o l t s f o r t h e 1977 b r e e d i n g . T h u s , t h e sum t o t a l of c o l t s f o r t h e three-year breeding would b e i n t h e number o f f i f t y ( 5 0 ) , o f w h i c h e a c h s i d e would b e e n t i t l e d t o a t o t a l of twenty-five (25) c o l t s each." The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l s o f o u n d t h a t W a t k i n s h a d r e c e i v e d two of the colts and that the fair market value of a colt r e g i s t e r e d w i t h t h e AQHA d u r i n g t h e time o f t h e c o n t r a c t was W f i n d t h e award f o r a c t u a l damages on t h e c o n t r a c t e Slp00. t o be p r o p e r . Watkins was p r o s e c u t i o n of awarded $627.14 t h i s lawsuit. as necessary costs in W a t k i n s was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s i n e i t h e r h i s d e f e n s e i n t h e c i v i l o r criminal actions. Watkins submitted a memorandum of c o s t s which p r o v i d e d : l. Clerk of C o u r t , f i l i n g of Motion to Dismiss 2. Judgment 3. Deposition 4. S t e n o g r a p h e r ' s Fee 5. Witness fees: A. B r a d Hamlet 88.00 Two days--$20.00 M i l e a g e f r o m Sun R i v e r , Montana--$68.00 B. Marge T a y l o r Two days--$20.00 M i l e a g e f r o m J o r d a n , Montana--$41.14 61.14 his TOTAL COSTS AND DISBURSEMENTS $627.14 Section 25-10-201, MCA, provides that a party to whom costs are allowed are entitled to include as costs: "(1) the legal fees of witnesses, including mileage, or referees and other officers; "(2) the expenses of taking depositions; " (4) the legal fees paid for filing and recording papers and certified copies thereof necessarily used in the action or on the trial;" The costs awarded are allowed under section 25-10-201, MCA, and are proper. Watkins was awarded $30,000 on his counterclaim for malicious prosecution and $25,000 as a result of libelous and defamatory statements. Conclusion of Law 17 awards $55,000 general damages to Watkins for loss of business and damage to reputation. Watkins testified that his business was damaged, that he incurred considerable attorney fees as a result of the criminal proceedings, and that he suffered humiliation and embarrassment as a result of the unfounded criminal prosecutions. spend a night in jail. Watkins was arrested and required to Watkins' son testified as to his father's reputation and questions asked of him by others involved in the horse breeding and trading business after the criminal charges were filed. In Keller v. Safeway Stores, Inc. (1940), 111 Mont. 28, 41, 108 P.2d 605, 612-613, this Court stated that it would rarely revise damage awards for defamation. "Unless the damages are so unconscionable as to impress the court with its injustice and thereby induce the court to believe that the jury was actuated by passion, prejudice or partiality, question it of rarely interferes excessiveness of with the the verdict. verdict is p r i m a r i l y addressed t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . " is n o t a j u r y case, t h e q u e s t i o n of The While t h i s t h e damage a w a r d f o r defamation is a m a t t e r of t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . W do f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e c o n c l u s i o n o f e t h e t r i a l c o u r t and w i l l therefore not i n t e r f e r e with the d e c i s i o n of t h e lower c o u r t . W a t k i n s was awarded intentional utterances. $50,000 punitive damages for P u n i t i v e o r e x e m p l a r y damages a r e a l l o w e d where the d e f e n d a n t h a s been g u i l t y of o p p r e s s i o n , fraud, or malice, example and 27-1-221, actual by way of or presumed, punishing for the sake t h e defendant. of Section E x e m p l a r y damages s h a l l b e u s e d when t h e MCA. d e f e n d a n t c l e a r l y shows t h a t h e i s d e s e r v i n g of s u c h s p e c i a l t r e a t m e n t and punishment. Mont. 325, 457 P.2d 459, I n Smith v. t h i s Court (1969), 153 Krutar indicates t h a t wnere a c t s a r e done w i l l f u l l y and t h e r e s u l t amounts t o f r a u d o r oppression, p u n i t i v e d a m a g e s may be awarded under the statute. Bill and LaVonne W a t k i n s h a v e b e e n v i c t i m s o f accusations. The maker o f e a c h and e v e r y one of t i m e h e made them. was made accused Each and e v e r y o n e of criminal Miller, knew t h e a c c u s a t i o n s t o be f a l s e a t t h e maliciously of these accusations, false and viciously. conduct. The the allegations Watkins allegations has been made s e r i o u s and d i r e c t l y a f f e c t h i s b u s i n e s s r e p u t a t i o n . are These a l l e g a t i o n s were r e p e a t e d over a p e r i o d of t h r e e y e a r s and continued at the time of trial. The award of punitive damages i s m e a n t t o make a n e x a m p l e a n d p u n i s h a p e r s o n s o t h a t he w i l l cease t h i s t y p e of conduct i n t h e f u t u r e . W e find that the f a c t s of this case allow for the a w a r d i n g o f p u n i t i v e damages. We affirm. \ Jus ic W concur: e 4&4 Chief J u s t i c 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.