Solem v. Chilcote, 906 P.2d 209 (1995)

3
double          damages.              The     court      also        found     that       the     landlord            had
wrongfully            withheld            $10 for     a smoke detector             and had failed              to give
a proper         4%hour             notice     for     cleaning        as required         by the lease.
          The landlord               appealed         the decision           to the District             Court        for
a trial         de nova.              In its         August     3,    1994,      Judgment,        the     District
Court        awarded        the tenants              withheld        rent,     double      damages,           damages
for     an illegal           provision              in the      lease,       and attorney             fees.       From
this      Judgment,         the landlord               appeals.
                                              Standard        of Review
          Our review            of a district            court's       finding         of fact        is set forth
in Y A Bar Livestock                      Company v. Harkness                (1994),     269 Mont.            239, 887
P.2d 1211,            as follows:
                  This Court reviews the findings            of a trial      court
          sitting     without    a jury     to determine       if   the court's
          findings    are clearly     erroneous.     Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P.
          A district     court's  findings    are clearly    erroneous if they
          are not supported by substantial            credible     evidence,     if
          the trial      court has misapprehended         the effect      of the
          evidence,    or if a review of the record leaves this Court
          with the definite      and firm conviction       that a mistake has
          been committed.
Y A Bar Livestock,                   887 P.2d at 1213 (citing                   Interstate            Prod.     Credit
AssIn      v.    DeSaye (1991),                250 Mont.         320, 323,         820 P.2d 1285,               1287.)
We have           defined             substantial             evidence        to      mean       "more         than         a
scintilla,            but       .     .    . less      than     a preponderance,                 of     evidence."
State      v.    Shodair            (Mont.     1995),         902 P.2d 21, 26,             52 St.        Rep. 879,
882 (citing            Miller         v. Frasure         (1991),       248 Mont.         132,     137, 809 P.2d
1257,        1261).
          We review                a district                court's             conclusion              of     law to determine                   if