Anderson v. Sack ( 2016 )

09/06/2016
DA 16-0058
Case Number: DA 16-0058
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2016 MT 223N
ERIC ANDERSEN, PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE
OF THE ESTATE OF VIGGO O. ANDERSEN,
Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
TIM SACK,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Cascade, Cause No. CDV-15-1030
Honorable John A. Kutzman, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Tim Sack (Self-Represented), Great Falls, Montana
For Appellee:
Dirk Larsen, Larsen Law Firm, PLLC, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 13, 2016
Decided: September 6, 2016
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Michael E Wheat delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court Internal Operating
Rules, this case is decided by memorandum opinion and shall not be cited and does not
serve as precedent. Its case title, cause number, and disposition shall be included in this
Court’s quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana
Reports.
¶2 Tim Sack appeals from the order and judgment entered by the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Cascade County, confirming an arbitration award in favor of Erik
Andersen, personal representative of the Estate of Viggo O. Andersen. We affirm.
¶3 In July 2012, Tim Sack entered into a one-year lease with Viggo Andersen to rent
the premises located at 2109 Vaughn Road in Great Falls, Montana. The lease provided
that Sack could use the property as a dwelling and for personal property storage in
exchange for monthly payments of $400.00. The lease contained an automatic renewal
term of one year. In the event of default by the tenant, the lease agreement provided for
the recovery of reasonable attorney’s fees and expenses. The lease agreement also
provided that any controversy or claim arising between the parties would be subject to
and resolved by binding arbitration, and that any judgment granted by the arbitrator could
be enforced in any court of proper jurisdiction.
¶4 Sack subsequently failed to pay rent for part of February 2014, and for the months
of March through September 2014. Past due rent totaled $2,900.00 when Andersen sent
Sack a three-day notice to vacate or pay rent. Andersen filed suit in Justice Court to evict
2
Sack and to recover past due rent and attorney’s fees. Andersen vacated the property
before trial and, in February 2015, the Justice Court issued its judgment and found the
lease agreement unenforceable under the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act.
Andersen appealed and, in April 2015, the District Court found that the Justice Court
erred in its conclusion of law regarding the validity of the lease. The District Court also
found that the Justice Court failed to properly interpret the arbitration clause in the lease
agreement and ordered the court to send the case to binding arbitration.
¶5 In May 2015, on remand from the District Court, the Justice Court ordered the
parties to settle the case by means of binding arbitration. In pre-arbitration rulings not
pertinent to this case, Andersen filed, and the Justice Court denied, a motion to relieve the
parties from the arbitration order. In July 2015, the District Court affirmed the Justice
Court’s decision and the parties entered into arbitration proceedings. On November 25,
2015, the arbitrator awarded Andersen $2,900.00 in past due rent, $4,125.00 in attorney’s
fees, and $215.00 in arbitration costs.
¶6 On December 9, 2015, Andersen filed a motion with the District Court to confirm
the arbitrator’s decision and award. On December 16, 2015, Sack filed an answer
disputing the arbitrator’s decision based on the lack of a signed lease agreement and
generally disputing the amount of attorney’s fees. On December 30, 2015, the District
Court issued its order and judgment confirming the arbitration award.
¶7 Sections 27-5-311, -312 and -313, MCA, limit judicial review of arbitration
awards. A district court may not review the merits of a controversy surrounding an
arbitration award, “but may only confirm, vacate, modify, or correct” the award. Terra
3
W. Townhomes, L.L.C. v. Stu Henkel Realty, 2000 MT 43, ¶ 22, 294 Mont. 344, 996 P.2d
866; see §§ 27-5-311 to -313, MCA. We review a court’s decision to confirm an
arbitration award for abuse of discretion. Terra W. Townhomes, ¶ 22.
¶8 Here, Sack’s main argument in seeking to avoid the arbitrator’s award of past due
rent rests on substantive law and includes challenges based on contract formation and
landlord-tenant law. However, under the aforementioned statutes, the District Court did
not err in refusing to address these issues and thus properly limited its scope of review.
Sack also contends that the amount of attorney’s fees awarded to Andersen was
excessive. The arbitrator relied upon sworn affidavits by Andersen’s attorney
documenting the legal services, hourly rate, and time spent on this matter. Both the
arbitrator and District Court found these fees to be reasonable. Thus, we cannot conclude
that the District Court abused its discretion in confirming the arbitration award.
¶9 We have determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c) of
our Internal Operating Rules, which provides for memorandum opinions. In the opinion
of the Court, the case presents a question controlled by settled law or by the clear
application of applicable standards of review. The District Court’s ruling was not an
abuse of discretion.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
4
We Concur:
/S/ LAURIE McKINNON
/S/ PATRICIA COTTER
/S/ JAMES JEREMIAH SHEA
/S/ JIM RICE
5