The District Court found that Swenson's actions were
retaliatory because he initiated efforts to retake possession of
the property before he rectified the problems in Jankes' complaint.
The court therefore concluded that Swenson violated § 70-24-431,
MCA. On appeal, Swenson contends that the court's finding of
retaliation was clearly erroneous.
Section 70-24-431 , MCA, prohibits retaliatory conduct by a
(1)
landlord and provides that:
Except as provided in this section, a landlord may
not retaliate by increasing rent, decreasing services, or
by bringing or threatening to bring an action for
possession after the tenant:
(a) has complained of a violation applicable to the
premises materially affecting health and safety to a
governmental agency charged with responsibility for
enforcement of a building or housing code;
(b) has complained to the landlord in writing of a
violation under 70-24-303;or
(c) has organized or become a member of a tenant's
union, mobile home park tenant association, or similar
organization.
In a letter written on July 8, 1992, Jankes complained to
Swenson about several problems. They informed Swenson that he
failed to "maintain in a good and safe working order electrical,
plumbing and sanitary facilities" and that the "plumbing and
sanitary facilities . . . are broken and are in need of repair."
The letter also notified Swenson that he failed to provide and
maintain appropriate garbage receptacles and failed to supply
running water to their home.
At trial, Jankes testified that they joined a tenants'
association in November 1992 and that Alice Janke, as a member of
that tenant's association, appeared before the 1993 Session of the
Montana Legislature and testified in support of an amendment to the
Landlord and Tenant Act. The amendment, which related to the
operation of mobile home parks and limited the ability of landlords
to evict tenants, passed and became law. Swenson attended the
hearing at which Alice Janke spoke.
Both Jankes' complaint to Swenson, and Alice Janke's testimony
on behalf of the tenant's association occurred prior to Swensonls
February 4, 1993, attempt to retake possession of Jankes' space and
terminate their tenancy.
Jankes' complaints to Swenson within months of his eviction
notice, Swenson's failure to address those complaints, Jankes'
membership in the tenants' association and activities on behalf of
that association, and Swenson's disapproval of those activities,
provided substantial evidence in support of the District Court's
finding of retaliatory conduct.
For these reasons, we hold that substantial credible evidence
supports the District Court's finding that Swenson's actions were
retaliatory and that the court's finding of retaliatory conduct was
not clearly erroneous.
ISSUE 2
Did the District Court err when it awarded damages equal to
three months1 rent pursuant to § 70-24-311,MCA?
We review a district court's conclusions of law to determine
if the court s application of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union