244_Mont[1]._324,_797_P.2d_899,_1990_Mont._L - Page 1 244...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Page 1 244 Mont. 324, *; 797 P.2d 899, **; 1990 Mont. LEXIS 241, ***; 47 Mont. St. Rep. 1464 1 of 1 DOCUMENT THE BILLINGS CLINIC, a partnership, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. PEAT MAR- WICK MAIN & CO., a partnership, and Donald A. Blackwell, Defendants and Ap- pellants No. 88-623 Supreme Court of Montana 244 Mont. 324 ; 797 P.2d 899; 1990 Mont. LEXIS 241; 47 Mont. St. Rep. 1464 June 6, 1990, Submitted August 16, 1990, Decided NOTICE: [***1] Released for Publication August 30, 1990. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY: As Corrected PRIOR HISTORY: Appeal from the District Court of Yellowstone County. Thirteenth Judicial District. Hon. Robert Holmstrom, Judge Presiding. DISPOSITION: Affirmed. CASE SUMMARY: PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Defendant accounting firm appealed a decision from the District Court of Yellowstone County (Montana), which found it liable for breach of its professional duty toward plaintiff medical clinic after it had been hired to provide advice on tax and accounting considerations in connection with clinic's plan to build a larger of- fice facility. OVERVIEW: On appeal, accountant firm argued that it was not engaged to examine clinic's eligibility for tax-exempt municipal bond financing. The court found sufficient evidence for the jury to determine a contract existed between the parties, the scope of the contract, and a breach of duty by accounting firm. In the presence of conflicting evidence, the jury's findings could not be disturbed. Firm also argued that clinic's claim sounded only in tort and the contract did not cover tortious acts or omissions. The court found that the malpractice claim existed mutually in contract and in tort. Whether the contract was express or implied, firm owed a duty to exercise due professional care. Because the claim could sound in both tort and contract, the five-year statute of limitations applied. The trial court properly denied proffered expert testimony. Although expert was timely identified, accounting firm failed to indicate the subject matter of expert's testimony. The proffered testimony consisted of new matter and was not limited to rebuttal testimony. In ad- dressing the damage award, the court held that firm was properly denied any offset because of alleged tax benefits to clinic. OUTCOME: The court affirmed the decision which found accounting firm liable for breach of its professional duty and in awarding damages. CORE TERMS: reorganization, accountant, financing, capital expenditures, doctor, mortgage, accounting, tax bene- fits, partnership, realty, implied contract, statutes of limitation, industrial, rebuttal, partner, law firm, professional duty, express contract, buy-in, revenue bonds, bond issue, contract claim, prime, bond holders, interest rate, interest expense, breach of contract, present value, recommendation, calculation LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Page 2 244 Mont. 324, *; 797 P.2d 899, **; 1990 Mont. LEXIS 241, ***; 47 Mont. St. Rep. 1464 Business & Corporate Law > General Partnerships > Management Duties & Liabilities > Causes of Action > Gener-
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 14

244_Mont[1]._324,_797_P.2d_899,_1990_Mont._L - Page 1 244...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online