Richard and Leona Napier appeal from a judgment of the
District Court, Nineteenth Judicial District, Lincoln County,
denying them recovery in an action for breach of a
landlord-tenant agreement. We affirm in part and reverse in
part the decision of the District Court.
On January 10, 1982, the Napiers entered into an
agreement with the Adkisons for the rental of a mobile home
near Libby, Montana. As part of the agreement, the Napiers
agreed to pay $100 on or before the 10th of each month and to
make any necessary repairs on the mobile home. These terms
were met until June 10, 1982, when the Napiers failed to make
the required rental payment.
Arrangements were then made for the June payment to be
made on or before June 27, 1982. The June payment was not
ma-de and the Adkisons made repeated attempts through the end
of June to contact the Napiers. During this time, the
Adkisons noticed that the Napiers had left their dogs in the
mobile home and that the dogs were damaging the interior of
the mobile home. Fina.11~ July 3, 1982, Mrs. Adkison left
on
a note on the mobile home notifying the Napiers that she
needed access to the mobile home so that the bank appraiser
could examine the property. After receiving no response from
the Napiers, on July 13, 1.982, the Adkisons placed a pa.dlock
on the front door of the mobile home and contacted the
Napiers' daughter, asking her to have her parents contact
them and notifying her that they would have to evict her
parents if necessa.ry in order to gain access to the mobile
home.
Upon discovering the padlock on the front door of the
mobile home, the Napiers contacted an attorney and a suit,
which was later dismissed, was filed in Justice Court. After
receiving the summons and complaint, the Adkisons attempted
to contact the Napiers through the Napiers' daughter. On
July 22, 1982, shortly after a conversation between the
Adkisons and the Napiers' daughter, Mr. Napier telephoned the
Adkisons and they arranged to meet at the mobile home around
6:00 that evening. The Adkisons arrived at the mobile home
before the Napiers and discovered that the front door of the
mobile home had been forcibly opened and the mobile home
burglarized.
On August 19, 1982, the Napiers filed a complaint in
District Court alleging unlawful exclusion from the mobile
home and requesting treble damages. The Adkisons
counterclaimed alleging abandonment and requesting all unpaid
rent. A nonjury trial. was held on June 15, 1983. The
District Court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of
law and judgment approximately one month later and held that
neither party was entitled to damages or costs. The Napiers
filed a notice of appeal on August 19, 1983, and the matter
is now before this Court.
The sole issue on appeal is whether the findings of
fact, conclusions of law and judgment entered by the District
Court are supported by substantial credible evidence.
This Court has repeatedly held that it will not disturb
findings of fact and conclusions of law that are based on
substantial credible evidence. The evidence need not be
flawless. Evidence may be considered "substantial" which is
inherently weak or conflicts with other evidence presented.
This Court will view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the prevailing party and will not overturn the findings
and conclusions based on such evidence unless there is a
clear preponderance of evidence against them. Cameron v.
Cameron (1978), 179 Mont. 219, 228, 587 P-2d 939, 945.