FIRST BANK-SOUTHSIDE MISSOULA v SA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 81-276 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 FIRST BANK-SOUTHSIDE MISSOULA, Plaintiff and Respondent, JAMES H. SADLER, DARLA C. SADLER and BILLIE WILLIAMS, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Missoula Honorable James B. Wheelis, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Milodragovich, Dale & Dye, Missoula, Montana James Sadler, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Anthony F. Keast, Missoula, Montana Garlington, Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana Submitted on Briefs: April 29, 1982 Decided: August 11,1982 Filed: AUG 11 1982 Justice Court. John This an Mr. is Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of action plaintiff commenced by the the bank an i n t e r p l e a d e r , t o compel t h e d e f e n d a n t s to s e t t l e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t t o c e r t a i n real e s t a t e i n which t h e a p p e l l a n t was a s e l l e r and t h e r e s p o n d e n t was a b u y e r . The c a s e was t r i e d without a j u r y and judgment was e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of t h e r e s p o n d e n t b u y e r . From this j udgmen t the The sole i s s u e p r e s e n t e d his judicial Williams, discretion sel l e r appellant is whether by the t r i a l denying the the appellant, husband, Richard Williams, judge . abused appellant, a n y remedy i n t h i s c a u s e of a c t i o n . o r i g i n a t e d when appe a 1s Billie The c o n t r a c t h e r e B i l l i e Williams, and h e r f o r m e r s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y i n v o l v e d s u b j e c t to a c o n t r a c t t o a f i r m known a s N o r t h w e s t L i m i t e d . The p u r c h a s e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n N o r t h w e s t L i m i t e d was t r a n s f e r r e d to J a m e s and D a r l a Sadler thereafter. The a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s t h a t a f t e r t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e p r o p e r t y t o t h e S a d l e r s , p a y m e n t s were f r e q u e n t l y l a t e and at times the Sadlers had more than one payment delinquent. A n o t i c e of d e f a u l t was m a i l e d to t h e S a d l e r s and r e c e i v e d by them; and t h e y i n t u r n p a i d to t h e escrow a g e n t t h e amount d u e on a F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n a f t e r t h r e e o ' c l o c k p.m. the default. T h e r e a f t e r on t h e 3 3 r d d a y of a s payment had b e e n made a f t e r 3:00 p.m. escrow the agent filed The a p p e l l a n t , B i l l i e W i l l i a m s , with the liated First with Bank-Western, the default, a Monday, t h a t t h e escrow a g e n t close t h e escrow, B i l l i e W i l l i a m s demanded result, o n t h e 3 0 t h d a y of escrow this interpleader As a action. is a r e a l e s t a t e loan o f f i c e r Missoula, agent, on t h e 3 0 t h day. Montana, which is a f f i - the First Bank-Southside at is the mother-in-law of M i s s o u l a , Montana. Geraldine James H. a Sadler, commercial McLaughlin C. and is property the owner/operator management firm e s t a t e subject t o the Williams/Sadler of that contract. Montana L e a s i n g , manages the real A l l p a y m e n t s on t h e c o n t r a c t were made by t h e l e a s i n g company from r e n t s r e c e i v e d from t h e p r o p e r t y . A t the time of t h e d e f a u l t , t h e r e w a s a nega- t i v e c a s h f l o w of $320 a month, p a r t i a l l y c a u s e d by t h e i n c r e a s e in taxes The from Sadler $1,200 to contract $3,200 a includes a year on mortgage the at property. the Western F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan and t h e a p p e l l a n t W i l l i a m s r e c e i v e s an i n t e r e s t o v e r r i d e due to t h e f a c t t h a t t h e S a d l e r c o n t r a c t i s a t a greater interest rate than S a v i n g s and Loan m o r t g a g e . $1,046.80 in principal tax and insurance Bank-Southside , Western Federal The payment i n q u e s t i o n a m o u n t s to and i n t e r e s t and $355.50 p e r month f o r a budget. the Williams' the bank After distributes payment the to whole the First payment to B i l l i e Williams a s per her i n s t r u c t i o n s . Mrs. W i l l i a m s claims by n o t r e c e i v i n g payment o n t h e first o f e v e r y month, t h e r e is a b u r d e n p l a c e d on h e r a s s h e is c h a r g e d a $15 l a t e p e n a l t y payment on t h e o u t s t a n d i n g m o r t g a g e a t t h e Western Federal complained Savings and Loan. In reply, t h a t t h e t e n a n t s pay t h e i r r e n t s l a t e ; them t o make t h e i r p a y m e n t s l a t e o n o c c a s i o n . the Sadlers t h u s causing T h e r e is t e s t i m o n y t h a t t h e S a d l e r s had r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e y be a l l o w e d to d i v i d e t h e payment, to allow the Sadlers to pay F e d e r a l S a v i n g s and Loan d i r e c t l y , payments to the appellant. the payment to Western t h u s s a v i n g any l a t e p e n a l t y The a p p e l l a n t r e f u s e d t o go a l o n g w i t h t h i s p l a n o f making payment. Much i s made i n t h e b r i e f i n g o f t h e c a s e and i n t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t h e t i m e t h e c a u s e was h e a r d , o f an attorney. tiate to S a d l e r is However, t h e r e i s n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d to s u b s t a n - any a l l e g a t i o n s t h a t M r . attorney the f a c t t h a t M r . his own S a d l e r u s e s h i s p o s i t i o n a s an advantage. T h e r e was no c l i e n t / a t t o r n e y r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t i n g b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s and t h e r e c o r d f a i l s to r e v e a l a n y i m p r o p r i e t y on t h e p a r t of M r . d e b t o b l i g a t i o n s to M r s . Williams. Sadler in handling h i s The t e s t i m o n y c l e a r l y shows t h a t t h e economic f a c t o r s o f t h e r e n t a l p r o p e r t y i n t h e b u i l d i n g i n v o l v e d is s u c h t h a t t h e S a d l e r s h a v e to g e t t h e r e n t s to pay off Mrs. W i l l i a m s a n d , p e r i o d s when i t t h e economy b e i n g what i t is, t h e r e a r e is n o t p o s s i b l e to pay t h e o b l i g a t i o n s o n t h e schedule t h a t the appellant W i l l i a m s desires. The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t s i n c e t h e payment was made o n t h e 30th day, t h e r e was n o d e f a u l t . The p o s i t i o n of the appellant c u t o f f t i m e a t t h e bank i s ; b e c a u s e S a d l e r knows o f t h e 3 : 0 0 p.m. o n F r i d a y a f t e r n o o n and made p a y m e n t s a f t e r t h e 3:00 p.m. cutoff time; t h a t s h e s h o u l d h a v e some r e l i e f from t h e c o u r t , e i t h e r (1) the court should unambiguous, c o n t r a c t by and that failure to provide deficiency of declared Sadlers t o remedy the contract forfeited the their as clear, rights contract within in the t h e 30-days or ( 2 ) t h a t t h e c o u r t s h o u l d have reformed t h e allowed therein; contract have the f o r a late-payment contract to and penalty enforce to correct compliance by the the d e f e n d a n t , S a d l e r ; o r ( 3 ) d e n y a r e c o v e r y u n d e r e i t h e r (1) o r ( 2 ) a b o v e and invoke t h e c o u r t ' s i n h e r e n t e q u i t a b l e power to o r d e r t h e o f f i c e r o f t h e c o u r t to p e r f o r m l e g a l and c o n t r a c t u a l d u t i e s i n a matter c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e e t h i c a l r e q u i r e ments of t h e p r o f e s s i o n . T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d o n numerous o c c a s i o n s t h a t it w i l l n o t t h e District Court u n l e s s e v i d e n c e pre- d i s t u r b t h e judgment o f ponderates a g a i n s t it. Our s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i n n o n - j u r y cases i s s i m p l y t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e r e was s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e to support the findings of Snowden ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. the District Court, 1 6 9 , 1 7 2 , 576 P.2d t h e e v i d e n c e was c l e a r and u n c o n t r o v e r t e d . see 1115, Hayden 1117. v. Here The payment r e q u i r e d by t h e n o t i c e o f d e f a u l t was p a i d o n t h e 3 0 t h d a y o f the default p e r i o d and t h e r e was n o t h i n g i n t h e c o n t r a c t c o n c e r n i n g a payment a f t e r 3:00 p.m. as being l a t e . A t the t i m e o f t h e payment o n t h e 3 0 t h d a y t h e b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t was c u r e d and u n d e r t h e terms of the c o n t r a c t i n t h e p a r a g r a p h s e t o u t f o r d e f a u l t , states t h a t if t h e d e f a u l t has been cured it c l e a r l y within t h i r t y days: "No d e f a u l t , termination, cancellation, a c c e l e r a t i o n s h a l l be worked." or The D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t when it found no d e f a u l t and it was correct p e n a l t y payments, in rejecting for if the appellant's s u c h had b e e n g r a n t e d , request for late t h e c o u r t would be rewriting a contract which it is not permitted to do. Judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and on this record each party shall pay their own attorney's fees. We concur:

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.