The court concluded that pursuant to § 70-24-411,MCA, Jankes
were entitled to an award of damages equal to three months rent.
However, Swenson claims that § -411 required Jankes to prove
purposeful conduct, which they did not do.
Section 70-24-411,MCA, provides in part that:
If a landlord unlawfully removes or excludes the tenant
from the premises or purposefullv diminishes services to
the tenant by interrupting or causing the interruption
of heat, running water, hot water, electricity, gas, or
other essential services, the tenant may recover
possession or terminate the rental agreement and, in
either case, recover an amount not more than 3 monthsr
periodic rent or treble damases, whichever is sreater.
(Emphasis added.)
While on its face § 70-24-411,MCA, does require purposeful
conduct, the retaliatory conduct statute allows remedies pursuant
to § -411 for retaliatory conduct. Specifically, subsection (2) of
the statute provides that "[ilf the landlord acts in violation of
subsection (1) of this section, the tenant is entitled to the
remedies provided in 70-24-411 . . . . It Section 70-24-431(2), MCA.
Here, the court, as discussed in Issue 1, found that Swenson
acted in retaliation and concluded that he violated § 70-24-431,
MCA. Accordingly, Jankes were entitled to "recover an amount not
more than 3 months1 periodic rent or treble damages, whichever is
greater." Section 70-24-411,MCA. Therefore, we need not discuss
whether Swenson acted purposefully to conclude that the District
Court correctly awarded damages pursuant to § 70-24-411,MCA.
ISSUE 3
Was Swenson entitled to terminate Jankesl tenancy without
cause pursuant to § 70-24-441,MCA?
We next consider Swensonlsallegation that as a landlord he is
entitled to terminate a tenancy without reason pursuant to
§ 70-24-441(2), MCA, and is entitled to bring an action for
possession if the tenant does not remove himself from the premises.
Section 70-24-441(2),MCA, does allow a landlord to terminate
a tenancy, however, the retaliatory conduct statute discussed above
provides that "[i]f the landlord acts in violation of subsection
(1) of this section, the tenant . . . has a defense in any
retaliatory action against him for possession." Section
70-24-431(2), MCA.
Here, the District Court found that Swenson acted in
retaliation and correctly concluded that such conduct violated