[DOWNLOAD] "Bhc Holding Co. v. Hurly" by Supreme Court of Montana * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Bhc Holding Co. v. Hurly
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 06, 1990
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 55 KB
Description
Submitted November 2, 1989 Defendant, Robert Hurly, appeals from an order of the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial
District, Yellowstone County, denying his motion for change of venue. We affirm The sole issue raised on appeal is whether
the District Court erred in denying Hurly's motion for change of venue Robert Hurly is an attorney in private practice in
Glasgow, Valley County, Montana. Plaintiff, BHC Holding Company, is a Montana Corporation with its principal place of business
in Billings, Yellowstone County, Montana. The complaint alleges that BHC is the successor in interest to the rights and claims
of Suburb Partnership, a Montana general partnership, which owned the Briarwood Project, a housing and country club development
located in Yellowstone County BHC's complaint stated a claim for legal malpractice, alleging that Suburb had employed Hurly
to represent it in working out its financial difficulties with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), which held a mortgage on the Briarwood subdivision, and First Bank of Billings, which held a mortgage on the Briarwood
country club. BHC claimed, among other things, that Hurly negligently performed these services and that Hurly breached his
duty by failing to work out suitable agreements with the Bank and HUD. BHC sought compensatory damages as well as cancellation
of any sums due for legal services and return of all sums previously paid for such services The present case is a companion
to an appeal we dealt with in Hurly v. Studer (Mont. 1988), [234 Mont. 100,] 761 P.2d 821, 45 St.Rep. 1761 (Studer). In that
case, Hurly brought a breach of contract suit in Valley County against Dean and Ralph Studer and Larry Chouinard individually,
alleging that these defendants were the parties with whom he had contracted to renegotiate the Briarwood Project loans. Hurly
sought payment for services allegedly due and owing. Like the present case, Studer concerned a denial of a motion for change
of venue. We remanded the case to the District Court because the court had not made the initial determination as to the location
of the performance of the contract In response to the complaint filed by BHC, Hurly filed various motions with the Yellowstone
County District Court, including a motion for change of venue to Valley County. The District Court reserved ruling on the
motions pending the outcome of the Studer appeal and the Valley County District Court's resolution of the issue on remand.
After several months elapsed and the Valley County Court had not rendered a decision on the matter, the Yellowstone County
Court issued a ruling on the venue question, holding that venue was proper in Yellowstone County. Hurly appealed to this
Court The complaint in the present case states a claim of legal malpractice, which is a tort. The statute governing venue
for actions based upon tort provides as follows: "The proper place of trial for a tort action is: