Ensley v. Murphy ( 1983 )

No. 82-174
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
ALVIN R. ENSLEY,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
MICHAEL MURPHY, a/k/a
PHILLIP ERNEST K R I N E R ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
I n and f o r t h e County o f M i s s o u l a
Honorable John Henson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
T i p p , Hoven, S k j e l s e t & F r i z z e l l , M i s s o u l a , Montana
Thomas F r i z z e l l , M i s s o u l a , Montana
F o r Respondent:
Theodore J. Cowan, M i s s o u l a , Montana
S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : November 5,,L982
Decided: F e b r u a r y 1 0 , 1983
M r . J u s t i c e John 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 the
Court.
F o l l o w i n g a n o r d e r t o show c a u s e h e a r i n g , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
ordered that plaintiff t a k e t e m p o r a r y p o s s e s s i o n of defendant's
1 9 6 5 Kenworth d i e s e l t r u c k . Defendant a p p e a l s .
P l a i n t i f £/respondent initiated this action by filing a
c o m p l a i n t i n t h e S u p e r i o r C o u r t of t h e S t a t e o f W a s h i n g t o n i n and
f o r t h e County o f King, a l l e g i n g b r e a c h of contract, replevin,
m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t o r t of outrage. The c o m p l a i n t arose o u t
of an oral agreement between plaintiff and defendant in
Washington in June 1981, whereby plaintiff loaned defendant
$ 1 5 , 0 0 0 a t 24 p e r c e n t i n t e r e s t t o p u r c h a s e a 1 9 6 5 Kenworth d i e s e l
truck and defendant was to grant plaintiff an oral security
i n t e r e s t i n t h e t r u c k and r e p a y t h e l o a n a t t h e r a t e of $ 5 0 0 p e r
month. The c e r t i f i c a t e o f t i t l e was i n a p p e l l a n t M u r p h y ' s name,
and t h e r e was no l e a s e h o l d r e c o r d e d . P l a i n t i f f a l s o a l l e g e s he
was t o r e c e i v e t h e g r e a t e r o f $350 p e r month or 1 0 p e r c e n t of t h e
defendant's net receipts from h a u l i n g f r e i g h t with the truck.
None o f t h e a g r e e m e n t was i n w r i t i n g . Defendant paid p l a i n t i f f
$ 1 , 0 0 0 and t h e n made no o t h e r p a y m e n t s .
When plaintiff located defendant and defendant's truck in
Missoula, Montana, plaintiff filed a complaint in the Fourth
Judicial District, i n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of Missoula, alleging
breach of contract, replevin, misrepresentation and tort of
outrage. T h i s c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d o n J a n u a r y 2 0 , 1982. Along
w i t h t h e complaint, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a motion r e q u i r i n g defendant
t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e why a n i n j u n c t i o n p e n d e n t e l i t e s h o u l d
n o t be i s s u e d r e s t r a i n i n g d e f e n d a n t from r e m o v i n g t h e t r u c k from
i t s l o c a t i o n i n M i s s o u l a d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h i s a c t i o n , and
f u r t h e r f o r a n o r d e r r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o a p p e a r and show c a u s e
why p l a i n t i f f s h o u l d n o t o b t a i n t e m p o r a r y p o s s e s s i o n of t h e t r u c k
pending t h e outcome of t h i s action. Following t h e show c a u s e
h e a r i n g on F e b r u a r y 1 7 , 1 9 8 2 , and F e b r u a r y 2 2 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e D i s t r i c t
Court ordered the p l a i n t i f f t a k e immediate temporary p o s s e s s i o n
of the t r u c k pending t h e outcome of t h i s action. The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t f u r t h e r o r d e r e d p l a i n t i f f to p a y a l l o u t s t a n d i n g t o w i n g and
s t o r a g e c h a r g e s o n t h e t r u c k and to p o s t a $ 1 6 , 0 0 0 bond to i n s u r e
t h e r e t u r n of t h e t r u c k i n t h e e v e n t of a n a d v e r s e r u l i n g . The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l o w e d p l a i n t i f f to o p e r a t e t h e t r u c k to m i t i g a t e
his damages and to a p p l y $500 o f any p r o f i t s to defendants'
o u t s t a n d i n g o b l i g a t i o n and t o pay any amounts o v e r $500 t o t h e
c l e r k of c o u r t t o be h e l d p e n d i n g t h e outcome of t h i s action.
D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order claiming the
o r d e r is a p p e a l a b l e p u r s u a n t t o R u l e l ( b ) , M.R.App.Civ.P. for the
r e a s o n t h a t t h e o r d e r g r a n t s a n i n j u n c t i o n and d i r e c t s t h e d e l i -
v e r y , t r a n s f e r o r s u r r e n d e r of p r o p e r t y .
The i s s u e s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l a r e as f o l l o w s :
1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in
issuing a preliminary injunction contrary to Montana law.
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by e n t e r i n g a p r e l i m i -
n a r y i n j u n c t i o n w i t h o u t making f i n d i n g s o f f a c t or c o n c l u s i o n s o f
law or giving any s t a t e m e n t of its reasons for granting the
injunction.
A l t h o u g h two i s s u e s were r a i s e d b y a p p e l l a n t , t h e case c a n be
d i s p o s e d of by answering t h e f i r s t i s s u e by v a c a t i n g t h e t r i a l
c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n of g r a n t i n g a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n .
W h i l e a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n may be issued t o protect the
p a r t i e s f r o m damage d u r i n g p e n d e n c y o f t h e s u i t and m a i n t a i n t h e
status quo pending final determination of the cause on the
m e r i t s , P o r t e r v. K & S P a r t n e r s h i p ( 1 9 8 1 ) , -- Mont . , 627
P.2d 836, here the court's o r d e r f a i l e d to p r e s e r v e t h e s t a t u s
quo. It determined substantive property rights and did not
f o l l o w o u r s t a t u t e s and r u l e s d i r e c t i n g t h e c o u r t to i s s u 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 o f law at the t i m e he issued the
injunction. See 2 7 - 1 9 - 2 0 1 ( 4 ) , MCA, see R u l e 5 2 (a), M.R.Civ.P.
The p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n is v a c a t e d and t h e c a u s e r e t u r n e d
t o the District Court.
We covcur:
Chief Justice
Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell:
I concur i n t h e r e s u l t ,
Y
Chief J u s t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e Frank B. M o r r i s o n , J r . , d i s s e n t i n g :
I n m o p i n i o n , t h e D i s t r i c t Court f a s h i o n e d a n e q u i t a b l e
y
remedy which was n o t an i n j u n c t i o n , g i n c e t h e remedy was n o t
injunctive fie c o u r t ' s o r d e r i s n o t a p p e a l a b l e , and I would
3
t h e r e f o r e n o t e n t e r t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n of t h i s m a t t e r .