O Neil Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon Co

Montana Supreme Court

O Neil Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon Co

DecidedOctober 8, 1980

Docket80-190

StatusPublished

This text of O Neil Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon Co (O Neil Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

O Neil Lumber Co. v. Nickelodeon Co, (Mo. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 80-190 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

O'NEIL LUMBER COMPANY,

Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- THE NICKELODEON COMPANIES, DORIS PICCARTER, Secretary, J. R. McCARTER, Presidient, Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: Dist. Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead, The Honor- able Robert C. Sykes, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record:

For Appellant:

Jerry O'Neil, Pro Se, Kalispell, Montana For Respondent : E. Eugene Atherton, Kalispell, Montana LL 3 1 <

Submitted on Briefs: August 13, 1980 Decided: ' p p Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .

O f N e i l Lumber Company, p r o c e e d i n g p r o se, f i l e d s u i t i n

t h e E l e v e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e S t a t e of Montana,

i n and f o r t h e County o f F l a t h e a d , a l l e g i n g The Nickelodeon

Companies had f a i l e d t o make payment on m a t e r i a l s s u p p l i e d

by O ' N e i l . The t r i a l c o u r t g r a n t e d judgment i n f a v o r of

p l a i n t i f f b u t would n o t a l l o w a t t o r n e y f e e s o r i n t e r e s t a t a

r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t p e r month on t h e unpaid b a l a n c e a s

asked. P l a i n t i f f appeals.

On J u l y 3 0 and August 9 of 1979, d e f e n d a n t a g r e e d t o

p u r c h a s e c e r t a i n b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s from p l a i n t i f f f o r

$1,666.60. The p u r c h a s e s w e r e i t e m i z e d and i d e n t i f i e d on

four invoices. Each i n v o i c e s t a t e d t h a t a 1 . 5 p e r c e n t

s e r v i c e c h a r g e would b e l e v i e d on p a s t - d u e a c c o u n t s . The

m a t e r i a l s w e r e d e l i v e r e d , b u t a f t e r numerous r e q u e s t s by

p l a i n t i f f , d e f e n d a n t f a i l e d t o t e n d e r payment.

On November 5, 1979, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d a m e c h a n i c ' s l i e n

a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t ' s r e a l p r o p e r t y i n t h e amount of $1,716.96,

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e amount due on t h e unpaid a c c o u n t and a

s e r v i c e c h a r g e a t t h e r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t f o r two months.

P l a i n t i f f a l s o asked f o r post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e of

1 . 5 p e r c e n t p e r month, a t t o r n e y f e e s , and c o s t s . The p r e s e n t

a c t i o n was f i l e d i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r f o r e c l o s u r e of s a i d

lien.

Af ter t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d e n i e d p l a i n t i f f s motion f o r

summary judgment, t h e m a t t e r was t r i e d i n chambers on May

1 6 , 1980. A t t h e b e g i n n i n g of t h e t r i a l , d e f e n d a n t f i l e d a

c o n f e s s i o n of judgment f o r t h e f u l l amount of t h e p u r c h a s e s ,

p l u s i n t e r e s t a t a l e g a l r a t e and a l l accumulated and t a x -

able costs. P l a i n t i f f r e j e c t e d t h e c o n f e s s i o n of judgment. v he ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t h e r e a f t e r r e n d e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , t

c o n c l u s i o n s of law and judgment i n f a v o r of p l a i n t i f f f o r

t h e amount of p u r c h a s e s $1,666.60, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t a rate

o f 1 0 p e r c e n t p e r annum and a l l accumulated and t a x a b l e

c o s t s amounting t o $ 3 7 . 0 4 . The t r i a l c o u r t d i s a l l o w e d

attorney fees . Two i s s u e s a r e r a i s e d on a p p e a l :

1. Whether t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d i n d i s a l l o w i n g a s li-

q u i d a t e d damages a s e r v i c e c h a r g e a t a r a t e of 1 . 5 p e r c e n t

p e r month on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e .

2. Whether 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 a l l o w

attorney fees.

Appellant argues t h a t t h e invoices specifying an i n t e r -

e s t r a t e o f 1 . 5 p e r c e n t on t h e u n p a i d b a l a n c e c o u p l e d w i t h

r e s p o n d e n t ' s p r i o r d e a l i n g w i t h him i s s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e

t o r e p r e s e n t a c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n and s h o u l d be e n f o r c e d

a s such. Respondent, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l -

l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p l e a d and p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e of a w r i t t e n

agreement, s i g n e d by b o t h p a r t i e s , p r e s c r i b i n g t h e e x a c t

t e r m s of t h e r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t t r a n s a c t i o n , p r e v e n t a p p e l -

l a n t from b e i n g e n t i t l e d t o a 1 . 5 p e r c e n t s e r v i c e c h a r g e .

Respondent f u r t h e r a r g u e s t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s f a i l u r e t o p l e a d

and p r o v e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a n e x p r e s s c o n t r a c t i n w r i t i n g

f i x i n g a d i f f e r e n t r a t e o f i n t e r e s t p r e c l u d e s i t from c o l -

l e c t i n g post-judgment i n t e r e s t a t a r a t e i n e x c e s s of t h a t

a l l o w e d by l a w .

Regarding t h e f i r s t i s s u e , s e c t i o n 31-1-241(4), MCA, of

t h e Montana R e t a i l I n s t a l l m e n t S a l e s A c t , s t a t e s t h a t ". . . a r e t a i l c h a r g e a c c o u n t agreement may p r o v i d e f o r and t h e

s e l l e r o r h o l d e r may c h a r g e , c o l l e c t , and r e c e i v e a f i n a n c e

c h a r g e a s s p e c i f i e d h e r e i n f o r t h e p r i v i l e g e of p a y i n g i n s t a l l m e n t s thereunder." The f i n a n c e c h a r g e may n o t exceed

a monthly r a t e o f 1 . 5 p e r c e n t . This s t a t u t e c l e a r l y indi-

c a t e s t h a t t h e i n t e r e s t r a t e c h a r g e d by a p p e l l a n t w a s n o t i n

e x c e s s of t h a t a l l o w e d by law. The q u e s t i o n remaining i s

whether i n v o i c e s r e p r e s e n t a r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t c o n t r a c t .

W e remember t h e words o f J u s t i c e John H . C l a r k e :

"The p a r t i e s t o t h e c o n t r a c t , w i t h f u l l under- s t a n d i n g of t h e r e s u l t s of d e l a y , and b e f o r e d i f f e r e n c e s o r i n t e r e s t e d views had a r i s e n between them, w e r e much more competent t o j u s t l y d e t e r m i n e what t h e amount of damage would be--an amount n e c e s s a r i l y l a r g e l y con- j e c t u r a l and r e s t i n g i n e s t i m a t e - - t h a n a c o u r t o r j u r y would be . . ." Wise v. United S t a t e s ( 1 9 1 9 ) , 249 U.S. 361, 366-67, 39 S.Ct. 303, 63 L.Ed. 647.

W h o l d t h a t t h e i n v o i c e s , two of which w e r e s i g n e d by b o t h e

p a r t i e s , d e s c r i b i n g t h e m a t e r i a l s p u r c h a s e d and s t a t i n g t h e

amount, i n c l u d i n g i n t e r e s t r a t e t o be c h a r g e d , a r e s u f -

f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o o b l i g a t e r e s p o n d e n t t o pay 1 . 5 p e r c e n t

on t h e unpaid b a l a n c e from September 1979 t o May 1980.

Although t h e i n v o i c e s do n o t meet a l l t h e s t a t u t o r y s p e c i -

f i c a t i o n s of a r e t a i l i n s t a l l m e n t c o n t r a c t , t h e v a l i d i t y

of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n i s i n i s s u e ; t h e r e f u r e , a p p e l l a n t ' s admis-

s i o n as t o t h e a u t h e n t i c i t y of t h e i n v o i c e s and a p p e l l a n t ' s

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI