Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Kalispell Aircraft Company, LLC v. Patterson

Supreme Court of Montana

June 25, 2019

KALISPELL AIRCRAFT COMPANY, LLC, Plaintiff, Appellee and Cross-Appellant,
v.
BRUCE PATTERSON, LEROY LEPLEY, BILL GRIFFIN, DOES 1-V, Defendants, Appellants, and Cross-Appellees.

          Submitted on Briefs: May 1, 2019

          APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and For the County of Flathead, Cause No. DV 14-930(C) Honorable Heidi J. Ulbricht, Presiding Judge

          For Appellants: Marybeth M. Sampsel, Measure Law, P.C., Kalispell, Montana

          For Appellee: Ashley C. McCormack, Rebecca J. Henning-Rutz, James T. McCormack, Henning, Rutz, & McCormack, P.L.L.C., Kalispell, Montana

          OPINION

          Ingrid Gustafson, Justice

         ¶1 Defendants/Appellants/Cross-Appellees Bruce Patterson, LeRoy Lepley, and Bill Griffin (Appellants) appeal the Order on Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings issued by the Montana Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, on July 8, 2016. Plaintiff/Appellee/Cross-Appellant Kalispell Aircraft Company, LLC (KAC) cross-appeals a series of orders made by the District Court which, in relevant part, denied KAC's Motion in Limine, sanctioned KAC, and denied KAC's Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest.

         ¶2 We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

1. Did the District Court err when it granted KAC's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings?
2. Did the District Court err when it denied KAC's Motion in Limine?
3. Did the District Court err when it sanctioned KAC?
4. Did the District Court err when it denied KAC's Motion for Pre-Judgment Interest?

         ¶3 We affirm.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         ¶4 On August 28, 2013, KAC and the Appellants signed a written Agreement for Sale of Aircraft (Agreement), in which the Appellants contracted to purchase a 1973 pressurized Cessna Skymaster 337 (Skymaster) from KAC for $90, 000. The Agreement stated, in relevant part, that:

Buyers shall have thirty (30) days from the date of this Agreement to complete any reasonable inspection, whether pre-buy, flight inspection, etc. If Buyers note any discrepancies which KAC is unable to reasonably remedy, then Buyers shall have an absolute right to withdraw from this Agreement with no penalty or obligation.

         The Appellants initially scheduled an inspection of the aircraft, but then informed KAC on September 12, 2013, without conducting an inspection, that they would not be purchasing the Skymaster as they were financially unable to obtain insurance. KAC ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.