Hollinger v. McMichael

No. 14600
IN THE SUPHEME C W O THE STATE O FJSXFANA
O F F
1 979
Plaintiff and Appellant,
G A Y L. McMICTWL,
LDS
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
Honorable EXiward Dussault, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
George, W i l l i a m s & Benn, Missoula, mntana
For Respondent:
Skelton and Knight, Missoula, mntana
Sdmitted on briefs: April 5, 1979
Decided: Mh'f 1 6 1979
-
Filed: : . . ,. -
.-
~
Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n 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 o f
t h e Court.
P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e determination of the D i s t r i c t
C o u r t , F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M i s s o u l a County, r e f u s i n g
t o award h i s c o u n s e l a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r work done on a s u c -
c e s s f u l a p p e a l and p o s t - a p p e a l m a t t e r s .
T h i s a c t i o n began A p r i l 9, 1 9 7 6 , o n which d a t e p l a i n -
t i f f f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t defendant f o r a breach of a
r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g contract. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d
p l a i n t i f f ' s m o t i o n f o r summary judgment on O c t o b e r 1 8 ,
1977. D e f e n d a n t a p p e a l e d t h e r u l i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r
summary judgment, and p l a i n t i f f cross-appealed t h e c o u r t ' s
f a i l u r e t o amend t h a t p o r t i o n o f t h e judgment c o n c e r n i n g
attorney fees. T h i s C o u r t c o n s i d e r e d t h e m a t t e r a n d , on
J u n e 1 9 , 1978, a f f i r m e d t h e summary judgment. That p o r t i o n
o f t h e judgment a w a r d i n g a t t o r n e y f e e s w a s r e v e r s e d , and t h e
m a t t e r remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a n e v i d e n t i a r y
hearing. H o l l i n g e r v . McMichael ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. I
580 P.2d 927, 35 S t . R e p . 856.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r e s i d e d o v e r a h e a r i n g on September
21, 1978. On September 28, 1 9 7 8 , judgment was e n t e r e d
awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s rendered through t h e
t i m e o f h e a r i n g on t h e m o t i o n f o r summary judgment. In its
judgment, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t s t a t e d : " [ t l h e Supreme C o u r t
d i d n o t a l l o w c o s t s o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l t o e i t h e r
side. T h e r e f o r e , t h e i t e m i z e d c o s t s and f e e s o n a p p e a l by
P l a i n t i f f a r e hereby denied." P l a i n t i f f appeals t h e r e f u s a l
t o award f e e s f o r s e r v i c e s r e n d e r e d i n t h e a p p e a l and i n
conjunction with t h e evidentiary hearing.
Only o n e i s s u e i s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : Did t h e D i s -
t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o award a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e
a d d i t i o n a l work? I f s o , what amount s h o u l d b e awarded?
W e f i n d t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n r e f u s i n g t o award
a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e a d d i t i o n a l work done on t h e a p p e a l .
Here, d e f e n d a n t , i n a p p e a l i n g t h e summary judgment d e c i s i o n
of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, p u t p l a i n t i f f t o t h e expense of an
appeal i n t h i s Court. Defendant f a i l e d t o o v e r r u l e t h e
judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t o u r t .
C S e e , H o l l i n g e r v. McMichael,
supra. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n d e n y i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s
r e q u e s t f o r f e e s i n c u r r e d by t h e a p p e a l . Plaintiff is
e n t i t l e d t o t h e r e a s o n a b l e f e e s which r e s u l t e d from d e f e n -
d a n t ' s breach of t h e l i s t i n g agreement.
The r e c o r d shows t h a t p l a i n t i f f s u b m i t t e d t o t h e is-
t r i c t C o u r t a n a f f i d a v i t showing 58-1/2 h o u r s o f work f o r a
t o t a l o f $2,071.88 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s and $128.38 i n c o s t s ,
which w e f i n d r e a s o n a b l e .
The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d , and a
judgment f o r $ 2 , 0 7 1 . 8 8 a t t o r n e y f e e s p l u s $128.38 c o s t s i s
h e r e b y awarded.
W e concur:
ief Justlc
QJl-4.
Justices
*,
M. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :
r
I concur i n t h e f o r e g o i n g o p i n i o n , b u t want t o make
i t c l e a r t h a t t h e b a s i s f o r awarding a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h i s
c a s e i s a p r o v i s i o n i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g agreement
between t h e p a r t i e s p r o v i d i n g f o r such award.
3h-Q 8
Chief J u s t i c e
Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Shea s p e c i a l l y c o n c u r r i n g :
I concur i n t h i s o p i n i o n on t h e same b a s i s a s d o e s
Chief J u s t i c e Haswell.