Preview:

No. 95-573
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1996

EDMUND WALTON, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK E. WALTON, PATTIWALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, CONNIE WALTON, AND T. ED WALTON,
Petitioners and Appellants,
v.
WESLEY PANKRATZ, PORCUPINE GRAZING ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana Corporation, MATTHEW W. KNIERIM, LAURACHRISTOFFERSEN, NICK PANKRATZ, and JOHN DOES l-10, Respondents and Respondents,

and WESLEY PANKRATZ and PORCUPINE GRAZING ASSOCIATION,
EDMUND WALTON, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK E. WALTON, PATTIWALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, CONNIE WALTON, and T. ED WALTON,
Defendants, Cross-Defendants, and Respondents,
and

EDMUND WALTON, LORETTA WALTON, PATRICK E. WALTON, PATTI WALTON, STEPHEN WALTON, CONNIE WALTON, and T. ED WALTON,
Cross-Plaintiffs and Respondents,
v.

PORCUPINE GRAZING ASSOCIATION, INC., a Montana Corporation,NICK PANKRATZ, PETER A. NYQUIST, NORTH BENCH RANCH, INC.,a Montana Corporation, EAST FORK RANCH, INC., a MontanaCorporation, and WESLEY PANKRATZ, Individually and d/b/a PORCUPINE LAND and LIVESTOCK,

Cross-Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Valley,The Honorable John C. McKeon,
Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Arnie
A. Hove, Attorney at Law,Circle, Montana
For Respondents:
Robert Hurly,
Attorney at Law,
Glasgow, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 8, 1996
Decided: October 8, 1996 Filed:

Cletk

Justice Terry N. Trieweiler
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and by a report of its result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Publishing Company.
The appellants, Edmund Walton, et. al. (Waltons), filed a petition for enforcement of a tribal court judgment and an application for a preliminary injunction in the District Court of the Seventeenth Judicial District in Valley County. The respondents, Wesley Pankratz,
et. al. (PPN)
, challenged the jurisdiction of the tribal court and asserted, as a counterclaim, an ongoing agister's
lien against Waltons' livestock. The parties reached a settlement of the issues raised by Waltons' request for injunctive relief. Waltons then (1)
consented to a final adjudication on the merits, (2) withdrew their efforts to enforce the tribal court order, and (3) requested a trial in the District Court of the issues raised by PPN's
counterclaim. After a nonjury
trial, the District Court entered a judgment for PPN in the amount of $92,614.18.
Waltons appeal the judgment of the District Court. We affirm the District Court.
The issues on appeal are:
1.
Was there sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the District Court?

2.
Did the District Court err when it refused to admit a videotape offered into evidence by Waltons, or when it granted PPN's
motion to quash a subpoena?



FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In November 1993, the parties made an agreement pursuant to which Waltons would transfer possession of a number of their livestock to PPN to keep on pastures belonging to or under the control of PPN. The agreement included the following provisions:
1.
A lease of PPN's
deeded lands for grazing by WALTONSof their livestock at an agreed lease price of $10.00 peranimal unit month for adult animals, and 6/lOths
thereof for calves;

2.
A provision that, upon reaching feeding arrangements,PPN be paid going rates for feeder services;

3.
A provision that PPN is to be paid on the 15th ofevery month for services to date, and that they may be paid in cattle of value equal to money owed, providedsaid cattle are free and clear of prior liens.


On November 15, 1993, Waltons placed approximately 199 head of livestock on PPN's
grazing ranges. The livestock remained on PPN ranges until January 18, 1994. Waltons were billed $3,980.00,
which they paid in full. However, after this initial successful transaction, the parties' business relationship deteriorated and resulted in this litigation.
On June 8, 1995, Waltons filed a petition for enforcement of a tribal court judgment and an application for a preliminary injunction in the District Court. They demanded the immediate return of possession of their livestock. PPN filed an answer in which it challenged the tribal court's jurisdiction, and asserted an agister's lien as a counterclaim. Prior to the conclusion of the injunction hearing, the parties reached a settlement on the issues raised by the request for an injunction.
Pursuant to that settlement, Waltons consented to a final adjudication on the merits in the District Court and withdrew their efforts to enforce the tribal court order. Further, they stipulated on the record that, although the amount was disputed, PPN had a valid agister's lien. The parties also stipulated that, in addition to the witnesses and evidence that would be presented at the trial, the District Court should admit and consider all of the witness testimony given at the preliminary injunction hearing.
A nonjury
trial was held on November 27-28, 1995. Both sides presented a considerable amount of evidence and number of witnesses. Waltons asserted that, despite their previous stipulation on the record, PPN did not have a valid agister's lien after May 2, 1995. They disputed whether PPN had, in fact, leased bulls to service their livestock, and objected to PPN's
calculations of their monthly bills. They also contended that PPN did not take proper care of their livestock, and that high numbers of their livestock had been killed and stolen. The parties also disagreed on the actual number of Waltons' livestock for which PPN provided grazing and wintering services.
After the trial, the District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order of judgment, from which Waltons now appeal. The District Court determined that PPN had (1)
leased bulls to service W&tons'
cows; (2)
kept, pastured, herded, and fed WaltoIls
'
livestock during various periods of time between January 24, 1994, and September 13,
1995; and (3)
provided services for seven of Waltons'
horses. Based on its findings, the District Court entered a judgment for PPN in the amount of $92,614.18.
The District Court also issued the following orders: PPN has a valid agister's lien; PPN is entitled to the immediate return of 292 cows, 48 heifers, and 213 calves based on their agister's lien; and that the judgment is to be enforced by sale, as set forth in the statutory provisions regarding agister's liens.
The District Court subsequently issued a supplemental order. Waltons filed a premature appeal, and this Court remanded the case to the District Court for "the
sole purpose of entering any further orders and judgments as might be necessary to finally resolve all issues in this cause." The District Court then issued its final order and awarded PPN the costs of gathering and caring for Waltons' livestock after the judgment.
ISSUE 1 Was there sufficient evidence to support the judgment of the District Court?
When we review a district court's findings of fact, the standard of review is whether those findings are clearly erroneous. Inlersrale
Prod Credit Ass

Download 592ce6aa-4223-4292-95b7-9c23d4a6d0d7.pdf

Montana Law