AAR Const., Inc. v. Fergus Elec. Co-op., Inc.
Decision Date | 15 February 1985 |
Docket Number | No. 84-434,84-434 |
Citation | 215 Mont. 102,695 P.2d 819 |
Parties | AAR CONSTRUCTION, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. FERGUS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Clary & Clary, Great Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.
Ken Tolliver; Wright, Tolliver & Guthals, Billings, for defendants and respondents.
AAR Construction, Inc., appeals from an order of the District Court, Tenth Judicial District, Fergus County, dated August 31, 1984, allowing C.E. Rookhuizen a set-off of $5,823.83 against a judgment theretofore granted by the District Court in favor of AAR Construction, Inc. and against C.E. Rookhuizen.
AAR also appeals from the order of the District Court of the same date allowing AAR the sum of $1,000 additional attorney fees.
AAR's appeal raises two issues:
1. Did the District Court have jurisdiction to grant a set-off against the judgment in this case?
2. Did the District Court abuse its discretion by awarding AAR attorney fees of only $1,000?
On consideration of the issues, we affirm the District Court.
C.E. Rookhuizen of Billings, Montana, was the general contractor for the construction of the Fergus Electric Cooperative office and warehouse in Lewistown, Montana. AAR Construction, Inc., was a subcontractor to Rookhuizen on the job. A dispute arose between the general contractor and the subcontractor as to sums claimed by the subcontractor for the original contract and extras performed by the subcontractor, and for credits claimed by the general contractor for work allegedly done by the general contractor that should have been done by the subcontractor. The parties were unable to resolve their differences and the case was tried and judgment entered on September 8, 1983, which resulted in C.E. Rookhuizen being obligated to pay AAR a judgment of $13,319.
During the course of construction, the subcontractor, AAR, failed to make payments to unions for fringe benefits due its workers and also failed to make payments to the Internal Revenue Service of withholdings from the workers. The failure to make the union payments resulted in both AAR Construction and Rookhuizen being sued by Audit Services, Inc., for the collection of those unpaid fringe benefit costs. The Internal Revenue Service served notice of levy upon AAR, Rookhuizen, and their counsel for claimed unpaid tax payments owed by AAR. The notice of levy was served prior to any judgment being entered either in this case or the case brought by Audit Services, Inc., to recover the sums due under the union agreements.
Regarding the union fringe benefit payments, AAR was primarily liable for the payments because they applied to AAR's workers, but Rookhuizen was secondarily liable if AAR did not pay by virtue of Sec. 39-3-706, MCA. In the cause brought by AAR against Rookhuizen the parties entered into a stipulation signed by their counsel and set forth in the pretrial order in that cause which recited:
In this case, the District Court in Fergus County made findings of fact and conclusions of law on September 8, 1983. In finding of fact no. 21, the district judge referred to the failure of AAR to make the payments to the union trust funds and that the fact of nonpayment was agreed upon by both of the parties. The court in conclusion of law no. 11 determined that Rookhuizen was not entitled to reimbursement at that time because of lack of evidence of AAR's liability therefor and Rookhuizen's liability therefor. On September 8, 1983, the court also entered judgment in the matter, in favor of AAR and against Rookhuizen in the net amount of $13,319.22, the court having allowed set-offs to Rookhuizen for certain sums under the contract.
Audit Services, Inc., obtained a judgment in the Yellowstone County District Court case against Rookhuizen on April 19, 1984, as a result of which Rookhuizen eventually made payment to Audit Services for a total of $5,823.83. On such payment Audit Services' judgment against Rookhuizen and AAR was satisfied in the Yellowstone County District Court.
In the meantime, Rookhuizen had appealed the judgment against him in favor of AAR entered in the Fergus County District Court to the Montana Supreme Court. He did nothing further to perfect his appeal and, after failing to meet deadlines given by this Court to proceed with appeal, in May of 1984 he advised the Montana Supreme Court that he did not wish to proceed with the appeal and the appeal was dismissed with prejudice. Rookhuizen thereafter attempted to bring an interpleader action in the Yellowstone County District Court to determine which of various creditors of AAR were entitled to funds held by C.E. Rookhuizen. Apparently that action aborted.
With the dismissal of the appeal to the Montana Supreme Court, the judgment against Rookhuizen in the Fergus County District Court had become final. Nonetheless, on June 14, 1984, Rookhuizen filed a verified motion for an order granting set-off of the amount paid by Rookhuizen to Audit Services against the judgment in favor of AAR.
The District Court held a telephone conference on the motion on June 28, 1984. The minutes of the court reflect that the telephone conference was held on that date and that the motion was denied. On July 13, 1984, Rookhuizen filed a verified motion for reconsideration of its motion for set-off. The District Court ordered a hearing on the motion for reconsideration on July 30, 1984, and on August 31, 1984, the court signed its order, filed September 4, 1984, granting Rookhuizen set-off against the AAR judgment. The court also ordered the payment of $1,000 in attorney fees by Rookhuizen to AAR.
In making its order of August 31, 1984, the District Court said:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gullett v. Van Dyke Const. Co.
...tender. Galbreath, 121 Mont. at 391-92, 193 P.2d at 632-33. That is not the situation here. ¶ 31 In AAR Constr., Inc. v. Fergus Electric Cooperative, Inc. (1985), 215 Mont. 102, 695 P.2d 819, we When a judgment is partially satisfied in fact, or when, by agreement of the parties a judgment ......
-
In re Marriage of Bell
...of entry is filed, neither does the time to request the court to modify or vacate the order. See AAR Const., Inc. v. Fergus Elec. Co-op., Inc. (1985), 215 Mont. 102, 108, 695 P.2d 819, 823 (holding that where no notice of entry of the order was served on the parties, the time for filing for......
-
Busch v. Atkinson, 95-456
...three and a half years after the district court filed its findings of fact, conclusions of law and decree); AAR Const. Inc. v. Fergus Elec. Co-op. (1985), 215 Mont. 102, 695 P.2d 819 (losing party's time for filing a post-judgment motion did not begin to run where the clerk of court failed ......