Whitefish Credit Union v. Prindivil , 2017 MT 91N ( 2017 )

04/18/2017
DA 16-0493
Case Number: DA 16-0493
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2017 MT 91N
WHITEFISH CREDIT UNION,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
MARY KAY PRINDIVILLE, GEORGE W. PRINDIVILLE,
LLOYD SHINN, BARBARA SHINN, BARRY ROTHSCHILD,
and JOHN DOE(S) 1-10,
Respondents and Appellees.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 11-746(A)
Honorable Robert B. Allison, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Sean S. Frampton, Johnna J. Preble, Morrison & Frampton, PLLP,
Whitefish, Montana
For Appellees:
George B. Best, Kira I. Evans, Best & Westover Law Office, Kalispell,
Montana (for Shinn/Rothschild)
Judah M. Gersh, Viscomi & Gersh, PLLP, Whitefish, Montana
(for Prindivilles)
Submitted on Briefs: March 22, 2017
Decided: April 18, 2017
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Jim Rice 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 Whitefish Credit Union (WCU) appeals from the District Court’s Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, and Order that determined the value of foreclosed property for
purposes of determining WCU’s entitlement to a deficiency judgment against the
above-named Defendants/Appellees.
¶3 The factual background of this matter, including the foreclosure of Appellees’
interest in the Patrick Creek property and WCU’s request for a deficiency judgment, is
fully set forth in our opinion in Whitefish Credit Union v. Prindiville, 2015 MT 328, 381
Mont. 443, 362 P.3d 53. In summary, Appellees defaulted on their notes to WCU, owing
approximately $1.9 million. WCU foreclosed on the secured property, which was sold at
a sheriff’s sale for $1.1 million, with WCU as the purchaser. WCU sought a deficiency
judgment, but the District Court, after conducting a hearing and considering the evidence,
determined the value of the Patrick Creek property to be approximately $2.4 million, and
that WCU was not entitled to a deficiency judgment against the Appellees.
¶4 WCU appealed. This Court determined that the District Court had not abused its
discretion by proceeding in equity to determine the value of the property for purposes of
2
entering a deficiency judgment, but that “evidentiary errors clearly affected the outcome
of the proceeding to the prejudice of WCU and . . . a remand for further proceedings and
application of the proper standards is necessary.” Whitefish Credit Union, ¶ 33. On
remand, the District Court conducted a new hearing and received exhibits and testimony.
The District Court averaged the appraisals of the parties’ respective real estate appraisers
and determined the value of the property to be $1.65 million, entitling WCU to a deficiency
judgment of $190,673.89, with attorney fees and costs of $36,088.50, and statutory interest.
WCU appeals.
¶5 WCU argues that the appraisal submitted by Appellees’ appraiser lacked credibility
because it relied upon sales that were not comparable. It further argues that the District
Court erred by failing to recognize deficits in the appraisal’s analysis of “highest and best
use” of the property, and by reasoning that an earlier appraisal commissioned by WCU for
its purchase of the property at sheriff’s sale was subject to negative value depressing effects
of foreclosure sales, when those effects had already been considered by the appraiser.
WCU asks this Court to address and apparently set standards for “the credibility of
appraisals.” As relief, WCU requests that this Court reject Appellees’ appraisal, conclude
that they failed to meet their burden of proving the value of the property, and order that a
deficiency judgment in the amount of $740,673.89 be entered.
¶6 “This Court will affirm the factual findings of a district court sitting without a jury
unless those findings are clearly erroneous.” Jacobson v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC,
2016 MT 101, ¶ 19, 383 Mont. 257, 371 P.3d 397 (citation omitted). “A district court’s
3
findings are clearly erroneous if they are not supported by substantial evidence, if the
district court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence, or if a review of the record
leaves this Court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.”
Jacobsen, ¶ 19 (citation omitted). “Evidentiary issues, including rulings on the
admissibility of expert testimony, are reviewed for abuse of discretion.” Whitefish Credit
Union, ¶ 10 (citation omitted). “The credibility of witnesses and the weight to be given to
their testimony are determined by the trier of fact . . . .” State v. Trujillo, 2008 MT 101,
¶ 8, 342 Mont. 319, 180 P.3d 1153 (citation omitted).
¶7 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 District Court’s findings of fact are not clearly erroneous and the court did not
abuse its discretion in its evidentiary rulings, including matters of credibility of the
appraisals.
¶8 Affirmed.
/S/ JIM RICE
We concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ DIRK M. SANDEFUR
/S/ BETH BAKER
4