Owen v. Skramovsky
2013 MT 348
Mont.2013Background
- Owen owned a Mission Foods distributorship in Flathead County; he decided to sell in 2010.
- In Feb 2010, Skramovsky agreed to purchase with a $10,000 down payment; no written contract was signed.
- Owen claimed the price was $130,000; at one point Owen indicated a higher price after Keltners offered $140,000.
- Skramovsky received training from Owen and began operating the route in June 2010; Mission Foods approved the transfer.
- No financial statements or other documentation were provided by Owen; a written purchase contract never materialized.
- District Court found Skramovsky was unjustly enriched and awarded Owen $81,325 plus costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err finding a $130,000 price? | Owen: agreement to buy for $130,000. | Skramovsky: no firm agreement; claimed price disputed. | No error; credible evidence supported $130,000 agreement. |
| Was Skramovsky unjustly enriched? | Owen: enrichment occurred by taking control and benefits without full payment. | Skramovsky: no wrongful act; negotiations ongoing; no contract. | Affirmed; court found enrichment given ongoing benefit without full consideration. |
| Was the damages measure proper for unjust enrichment? | Owen: damages equal to value enhancement or quantum meruit. | Skramovsky: use of alternative valuation methods; no quantum meruit basis. | Affirmed; court used enhancement-based valuation supported by the record. |
| Did Skramovsky know of falsity regarding commissions and P&L statements? | Owen: no misrepresentation; Skramovsky knew the truth. | Skramovsky: Owen misrepresented commissions and would provide P&L statements. | Affirmed; district court’s dismissal of fraud/misrepresentation claims upheld. |
| Did the cross-appeal misstate damages on unjust enrichment? | Owen: should award $120,000 unjust enrichment. | Skramovsky: district court’s method was reasonable but could vary. | Affirmed; court properly weighed evidence and calculated enhancement value. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. James Healthcare v. Cole, 2008 MT 44 (Mont. 2008) (credibility and weight of evidence are for the trial court; not clearly erroneous on appeal)
- Varano v. Hicks, 2012 MT 195 (Mont. 2012) (standard for reviewing factual findings in bench trials)
- Hinebauch v. McRae, 2011 MT 270 (Mont. 2011) (unjust enrichment implications and implied contract concepts)
- Estate of Pruyn v. Axmen Propane, Inc., 2009 MT 448 (Mont. 2009) (elements related to unjust enrichment/quantum meruit context)
- McCulley v. Am. Land Title Co., 2013 MT 89 (Mont. 2013) (fraud and misrepresentation elements in related claims)
- Harpole v. Powell Cty. Title Co., 2013 MT 257 (Mont. 2013) (elements and proof required for misrepresentation claims)
- AAA Constr. of Missoula, LLC v. Choice Land Corp., 2011 MT 262 (Mont. 2011) (standard for review of district court damages determinations)
- Watson v. West, 2011 MT 57 (Mont. 2011) (damages and factual support standards on appeal)