No. 13441

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1977 FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF CIRCLE, Circle, Montana,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

-vs- GRAHAM CHARLES GARNER and SYDNEY MORRIS et al.,

Defendants, Graham Charles Garner and Sydney Morris et al.,

Cross Plaintiffs,

-vs- FEDERICO CRUZ, et al.,

Cross Defendants, Frederico Cruz ,

Cross-Plaintiff,

-vs- BERNARD GADD ,

Cross-Defendant. Appeal from: District Court of the Seventh Judicial

District,

Hon. C.B. Sande, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record:

For Appellants:

Towe, Ball & Enright

Thomas Towe argued, Billings, Montana

For Respondents:

George Dalthorp argued, Billings, Montana

Crowley, Kilbourne, Hanson, Gallagher & Toole,

Billings, Montana

Gene Huntley, Baker, Montana

J.B. Casas, Jr., Los Angeles, California

Submitted: March 21, 1977 Yr. j u s r i c e Gene 3 . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

P l a i n t i f f , F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e , C i r c l e , Montana, f i l e c ; t h i s a c t i o n on May 22, 1972, i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , McCone dounty, f o r a d e c l a r a t o r y judgment t o determine i t s l e g a l o b l i g a - Lions r e g a r d i n g c e r t a i n bank d e p o s i t s and c a s h i e r ' s checks. 311 W y 6 , 1975, p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r summary judgment was

a g r a n t e d , p l a i n t i f f then f i l e d a motion f o r award of a t t o r n e y fees. T h i s motion was denied on May 5 , 1976 and from t h a t d e n i a l p l a i n t i f f appeals.

I n 1971, D r . Federico Cruz a c q u i r e d c o n t r o l of t h e B r i t i s h .4merican Bank Limited of t h e Bahamas. D r . Cruz was p r e s i d e n t ;£ I t h e bank when i t s l i c e n s e was suspended by t h e government oi tlhe Bahamas i n e a r l y 1972. On March 23, 1972, D r . Cruz, c e p r e s e n t i n g himself t o be t h e p r e s i d e n t of t h e British-American Yank, Ltd.(Glasgow, s c o t l a n d ) , opened a c o r p o r a t e checking account w i t h p l a i n t i f f F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e , Montana. de p r e s e n t e d checks endorsed t o t h e B r i t i s h American Bank Limited from d e p o s i t o r s l o c a t e d a l l over t h e world, i n t h e approximate rlinount of $1,600,000.00. On May 8 , 1972, t h e account b a l a n c e was approximately $1,542,868.01 and D r . Cruz r e q u e s t e d a w i t h - drawal of $1,327,788.00. The C i r c l e Bank i s s u e d c a s h i e r ' s checks t o him p e r s o n a l l y t o t a l i n g t h i s amount.

On May 1 5 , 1972, t h e C i r c l e Bank r e c e i v e d a telephone c a l l and a celegram from a Bernard Gadd who informed t h e C i r c l e Bank he had been appointed P r o v i s i o n a l L i q u i d a t o r f o r t h e B r i t i s h - American Bank,Ltd., on May 11, 1972, and demanded t h e C i r c l e Bank s t o p payment on t h e c a s h i e r ' s checks i s s u e d t o D r . Cruz on !day 8 , 1972. Gadd l a t e r demanded t h a t a l l remaining funds be L r o ~ e r land r e t u r n e d t o him. May 1 5 , 1 9 7 2 , was t h e f i r s t n o t i c e c o t h e C i r c l e Bank of such l i q u i d a t i o n proceedings.

O May 22, 1972, t h e C i r c l e Bank f i l e d t h i s a c t i o n a g a i n s t

n deielldarlts. Although t h e a c t i o n was s t y l e d "Complaint f o r 9 e c l a r a t o r y Judgment!', t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r e a t e d i t a s an interpleader. The C i r c l e Bank asked t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t (1) t o ddjudicate i t s l e g a l obligations t o defendants regarding t h e bank d e p o s i t s and c a s h i e r ' s checks, (2) f o r a d e t e r m i n a t i o n whether i t should f r e e z e t h e account and s t o p payment on t h e c a s h i e r ' s checks, and ( 3 ) f o r r e a s o n a b l e a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .

D r . Federico Cruz f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m demanding damages against t h e C i r c l e Bank f o r t h e f a c e amount of t h e c a s h i e r ' s zhdcks, which D r . Cruz a l l e g e d were wrongfully dishonored by t h e i l r c l e Bank. The L i q u i d a t o r f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r a f u l l accounting of a l l monies d e p o s i t e d i n t h e C i r c l e Bank i n t h e name of t h e British-American Bank Ltd. O November 1, 1972,

n t h e C i r c l e Bank f i l e d a motion f o r t h e d i s c h a r g e of i t s e l f and i t s officers. After a lengthy l i t i g a t i o n p r o c e s s , on May 7 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r d e r e d :

"yc 9~ t h a t t h e motions f o r summary judgment of t h e

F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e a r e i n a l l r e s p e c t s

g r a n t e d and t h a t t h e motion f o r summary judgment of

t h e B r i t i s h American Bank Limited and t h e O f f i c i a l

L i q u i d a t o r s t h e r e o f a g a i n s t Federico Cruz a r e g r a n t e d

with r e s p e c t t o a l l m a t t e r s d e a l t w i t h h e r e i n and w i t h

r e s p e c t t o t h e ownership of t h e funds i n t h e custody of

t h e Court ** *.I' Jw11drship was g r a n t e d t o t h e O f f i c i a l L i q u i d a t o r . All questions !were s e t t l e d , except f o r t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e ' s :lain1 for attorney fees.

P l a i n t i f f p r e s e n t s one i s s u e f o r review by t h i s Court-- whether p l a i n t i f f F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e i s e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s t o be p a i d o u t of t h e i n t e r p l e a d e r fund?

To answer t h i s question t h e Court must decide whether t h e C i r c l e Bank was a d i s i n t e r e s t e d stakeholder, I f the stakeholder does not stand i n d i f f e r e n t between t h e claimants, i t i s not e n t i t l e d t o an allowance f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . Defendant Bernard Gadd contends t h i s a c t i o n was not an i n t e r p l e a d e r and t h a t p l a i n t i f f had an i n t e r e s t i n keeping t h e funds i n i t s bank a s long a s p o s s i b l e . This Court i n Central Montana Stockyards v. F r a s e r ; 133 Mont, 168, 193, 320 P.2d 981, s t a t e d :

"'An a t t i t u d e of p e r f e c t d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s ,

excluding even an i n d i r e c t i n t e r e s t on t h e p a r t of t h e

p l a i n t i f f i s indispensable t o t h e maintenance of t h e

b i l l [of interpleader! * *.

Jc "' However, Rule 22(a), M.R.Civ.P., removes t h i s r e s t r i c t i o n and expressly provides i t i s n o t a ground f o r o b j e c t i o n when a p l a i n t i f f i n an i n t e r p l e a d e r a c t i o n avers he i s not l i a b l e i n whole o r i n p a r t t o any o r a l l of t h e claimants. Since t h e award of c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i s within t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t , such award i s commonly denied when t h e stakeholder, although d i s i n t e r e s t e d , i s i n some way culpable a s regards t h e s u b j e c t matter of t h e i n t e r p l e a d e r proceeding, but not s u f f i c i e n t l y culpable t o warrant d e n i a l of i n t e r p l e a d e r a l t o g e t h e r . Merrimack Manufacturing Co. v. Bergman, 154 F.Supp. 688.

P l a i n t i f f contends t h e reason i t d i d not f i l e a s t r i c t i n t e r p l e a d e r a c t i o n was t o make sure t h i s money would continue t o receive i n t e r e s t . The money did receive i n t e r e s t i n t h e amount of approximately $345,000.00. Defendants, on t h e o t h e r hand, con- tend p l a i n t i f f ' s motive was not a l l t h a t a l t r u i s t i c . They f e l t t h e bank's reason f o r n o t f i l i n g an i n t e r p l e a d e r was t o keep t h e funds a s a deposit i n i t s bank a s long a s p o s s i b l e . The record shows a motion was made demandi~igt h a t p l a i n t i f f pay i n t o t h e r e g i s t r y of c o u r t o r d e p o s i t f o r safekeeping i n a bank n o t a pal-ty t o t h i s a c t i o n , d e s i g n a t e d by t h e c o u r t , a l l sums i n t h e dccount i n q u e s t i o n .

The F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e r e s i s t e d t h e t r a n s f e r 02 t h e funds from i t s c u s t o d y , a r g u i n g t h a t i t should be r e l e a s e d from a l l l i a b i l i t y i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n of i t s r e l e a s i n g t h e funds. 3n Wovember 6 , 1972, t h e funds were o r d e r e d t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e j e c u r i t y T r u s t and Savings Bank of B i l l i n g s , Montana.

During t h e p e r i o d t h e p l a i n t i f f had c o n t r o l of t h e f u n d s , 4Zron1 :<larch 23, 1972, u n t i l they were p a i d over t o t h e S e c u r i t y Crust and Savings Bank, t h e p l a i n t i f f p a i d an i n t e r e s t r a t e of 4% compounded q u a r t e r l y . The S e c u r i t y T r u s t and Savings Bank p a i d an i n t e r e s t r a t e of 5 118% compounded q u a r t e r l y . A t 4% t h e o r i g i n a l d e p o s i t would have produced $7,700 i n t e r e s t d u r i n g r h e p e r i o d from t h e d a t e of t h e i n i t i a l d e p o s i t , March 23, 1 9 7 2 , t o t h e d a t e of t h e f i l i n g of t h e a c t i o n , May 22, 1972. During t h i s p e r i o d p l a i n t i f f C i r c l e Bank p a i d no i n t e r e s t on t h e f u n d s , t h u s f o r t h i s p e r i o d i t had t h e use of t h i s money i n t e r e s t f r e e t o i n v e s t a s i t saw f i t .

I t a p p e a r s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t r e c o r d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was i n no h u r r y t o r e l e a s e t h e funds. M r . Towe, a t t o r n e y f o r p l a i n - t i f f stated:

''We a r e n o t anxious t o r e l e a s e t h e funds u n t i l

we r e c e i v e d i s c h a r g e , a t l e a s t f o r t h e l i a b i l i t y . " Thus i t seems p l a i n t i f f i n t h i s a c t i o n was n o t a d i s i n t e r e s t e d stakeholder. The C i r c l e Bank i n d i c a t e d b e f o r e i t would r e l e a s e t h e s e funds i t d e s i r e d f u r t h e r p r o t e c t i o n from t h e c o u r t i n exon- e r a t i n g i t from any l i a b i l i t y . When t h e a c t i o n i s n o t one of s t r i c t i n t e r p l e a d e r , and p l a i n t i f f i s more t h a n a mere s t a k e h o l d e r , a t t o r n e y f e e s a r e n o t allowable. Metropolitan L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v. E n r i g h t , 231 F.Supp. 275, 278.

I n t h i s c a s e t h e record r e v e a l s t h e C i r c l e Bank was n o t a d i s i n t e r e s t e d stakeholder. The Bahama Bank L i q u i d a t o r was a t t e m p t i n g t o hold p l a i n t i f f l i a b l e f o r $97,000 withdrawn from t h e account p r i o r t o t h e time t h e l i q u i d a t i o n procedure s t a r t e d . Such a c l a i m can h a r d l y be c h a r a c t e r i z e d a s a minor p a r t of t h e litigation. C i r c l e Bank had a g r e a t d e a l r i d i n g on t h e outcome of t h i s l i t i g a t i o n . It i s g e n e r a l l y recognized t h a t when a p a r t y i n t e r p l e a d i n g c l a i m a n t s t o funds o r p r o p e r t y d i s p u t e s t h e amount of t h e fund o r t o t h e e x t e n t of t h e p r o p e r t y , h a s some o t h e r s u b s t a n t i a l i n t e r e s t i n t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r o r t h e outcome of t h e l i t i g a t i o n , o r does n o t s t a n d i n d i f f e r e n t between t h e c l a i m a n t s , he s t a n d s on t h e same f o o t i n g a s any o t h e r l i t i g a n t and i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n allowance f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . Groves v. S e n t e l l , 153 U.S.465, 14 S.Ct. 898,:38 L ed 785.

Where a p l a i n t i f f h a s placed himself i n a p o s i t i o n n e c e s s i t a t i n g i n t e r p l e a d e r t o avoid double v e x a t i o n , he i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o attorney fees. Gresham S t a t e Bank v. 0 and K Con- s t r u c t i o n Co., 231 O r . 106, 370 P.2d 726. Here, it appears from t h e record p l a i n t i f f used l e s s than prudent banking p r a c t i c e s i n handling t h i s account. On March 24, 1972, Edward Towe, p r e s i d e n t of t h e C i r c l e N a t i o n a l Bank c a l l e d t h e O f f i c e o f t h e Comptroller of t h e Treasury i n Washington D. C. t o make s u r e D r . Cruz was p r e s i d e n t of t h e BritSsh-American Bank, L t d . , of Scotland. He never r e c e i v e d a response and no f u r t h e r i n q u i r i e s were made. Subsequently p l a i n t i f f i s s u e d $1,327,788.00 i n c a s h i e r ' s checks t o D r . Cruz a t h i s r e q u e s t , i n c l u d i n g one check i n t h e sum of $914,288.00 payable p e r s o n a l l y t o D r . Cruz, o u t of t h e account r e g i s e e r e d L t h e name o f t h e British-American Bank, Ltd., of

n Scotland w i t h o u t f u r t h e r c o n f i r m a t i o n . These c a s h i e r ' s checks 5ecame an i s s u e i n t h e l a w s u i t and i n t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s plead.ings it asked t h e c o u r t t o a d j u d i c a t e t h e r i g h t s and o b l i g a t i o n s of defendants t o t h e funds r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e c a s h i e r ' s checks.

To deny t h e award of c o u n s e l f e e s t o t h e s t a k e h o l d e r w i l l not 5e t o l e a v e i t s a t t o r n e y uncompensated. I t simply r e p r e s e n t s a d e c i s i o n t h a t a l l o r p a r t of t h e f e e s i n c u r r e d by t h e s t a k e - h o l d e r should be p a i d o u t i t s pocket, r a t h e r t h a n o u t of t h e pocket of t h e p r e v a i l i n g c l a i m a n t . 3 Moore's F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e

A $~22.16[2],

p. 3144, s t a t e s :

"The p r e v a i l i n g p r i n c i p l e i n i n t e r p l e a d e r a c t i o n s

brought i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t s , whether under t h e

i n t e r p l e a d e r s t a t u t e o r under Rule 2 2 ( 1 ) , i s t h a t

i t i s w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t t o award t h e

stakeholder c o s t s including a reasonable attorneys'

f e e o u t of t h e d e p o s i t e d fund."

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t d i d n o t abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n denying a t t o r n e y f e e s t o t h e F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of C i r c l e . The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s affirmed,

Justice chief Justice /'I Justices.