Tobacco River Lumber Co. Inc. V. ( 1979 )

No. 14785
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
TOBACCO RIVER LUMBER COMPANY, INC .,
a Montana corporation,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
VS.
LOUIS A. YOPPE et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District,
Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert S. Keller argued, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondents:
Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana
Thomas R. Bostock argued, Libby, Montana
Submitted: November 1, 1979
Decided :
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f Tobacco R i v e r Lumber Company, I n c . , f i l e d an
a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s Yoppe a l l e g i n g i n Count I a n
a c t i o n f o r damages f o r a d e l a y i n d e e d i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y t o
p l a i n t i f f , and a l l e g i n g i n Count I1 a n a c t i o n f o r damages
f o r t h e c o s t of a s u r v e y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o p e r t y re-
f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The m a t t e r was t r i e d
b e f o r e a j u r y i n December 1978 i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e
N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and
f o r t h e County of L i n c o l n . The j u r y awarded no damages f o r
t h e d e l a y i n Count I and one-half of t h e survey c o s t s i n
Count 11. P l a i n t i f f t h e r e a f t e r moved f o r a new t r i a l a s t o
b o t h c o u n t s , b u t t h e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion. Plaintiff
a p p e a l s from t h e f i n a l judgment and o r d e r s d e n y i n g t h e
motion f o r a new t r i a l .
Plaintiff-appellant, a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n p r i m a r i l y
engaged i n t h e wood p r o d u c t s i n d u s t r y , n e g o t i a t e d w i t h
defendants-respondents f o r t h e purchase of an i r r e g u l a r l y
shaped t r a c t of l a n d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 a c r e s s i t u a t e d
n e a r Eureka, Montana. These n e g o t i a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n t h e
e x e c u t i o n o f a c o n t r a c t f o r deed d a t e d J u n e 1, 1966.
The p u r c h a s e p r i c e w a s p a i d on o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 31,
1972. According t o t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d , t h e
Yoppes were t o p r o v i d e Tobacco R i v e r w i t h a w a r r a n t y deed
conveying t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y and a p o l i c y o f t i t l e
i n s u r a n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e l a s t payment o r w i t h i n a
r e a s o n a b l e t i m e t h e r e a f t e r , such p e r i o d n o t t o exceed 60
days. The Yoppes p r o v i d e d Tobacco R i v e r w i t h a w a r r a n t y
deed on May 1 4 , 1974, and t i t l e i n s u r a n c e on J u n e 6 , 1974.
A t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l payment, t h e Yoppes r e q u e s t e d
t h e i r a t t o r n e y , J o s e p h F. Fennessy, J r . , of Libby, Montana,
t o p r e p a r e a deed and o b t a i n t i t l e i n s u r a n c e . The l e g a l
d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed w a s compiled from
v a r i o u s t a x n o t i c e s and d i d n o t g i v e a s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l
description. The t i t l e company, t h e r e f o r e , r e q u e s t e d a
survey. The Yoppes took s t e p s t o a r r a n g e f o r a s u r v e y i n
A p r i l 1973 when M r s . Yoppe c o n t a c t e d a s u r v e y o r from M i s -
s o u l a who a g r e e d t o do a boundary s u r v e y f o r h e r .
By t h i s t i m e Tobacco R i v e r had c o n s t r u c t e d homes on t h e
p r e m i s e s and d e s i r e d t o have a n i n t e r i o r s u r v e y of t h e
various t r a c t s involved. Tobacco R i v e r c o n t a c t e d t h e s a m e
s u r v e y o r f o r an i n t e r i o r s u r v e y , w i t h a r e q u e s t , and a n
agreement, t h a t t h e s u r v e y would be completed b e f o r e J u l y 1,
1973, when t h e new Montana S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act
would t a k e e f f e c t . I n mid-June, however, t h e Missoula
s u r v e y o r informed t h e p a r t i e s t h a t he had n o t been a b l e t o
g e t t o t h e s u r v e y b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e s s o f b u s i n e s s and would
n o t be a b l e t o b e f o r e J u l y 1, 1973. The p r e s i d e n t of Tobacco
R i v e r t h e n o b t a i n e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f a s u r v e y o r from B i l l i n g s
who proceeded w i t h d i s p a t c h t o do t h e boundary s u r v e y and
t h e i n t e r i o r s u r v e y and f i n i s h e d t h e s u r v e y s i n September
1973. H e s u b m i t t e d a b i l l f o r t h e i n t e r i o r s u r v e y , which
w a s p a i d by Tobacco R i v e r , and h e s u b m i t t e d a b i l l f o r t h e
e x t e r i o r s u r v e y , which w a s n o t p a i d by t h e Yoppes o r anyone
else. Because of t h e f a i l u r e t o pay, t h e e x t e r i o r s u r v e y
was n o t f i l e d by t h e s u r v e y o r , and no deed c o u l d b e d e l i v e r e d .
I n May 1974, t h e Yoppes' a t t o r n e y p r e p a r e d a deed from
t a x n o t i c e s , t h e L i n c o l n County t r a c t book, and o t h e r p a p e r s ,
which p r o v i d e d f o r 379 a c r e s , more o r l e s s . his was pos-
s i b l e a s s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, had been r e p e a l e d .
The deed was r e c o r d e d on May 1 4 , 1974. A t t h e same t i m e ,
t h e t i t l e company i s s u e d a p o l i c y o f t i t l e i n s u r a n c e e f f e c -
t i v e May 1 4 , 1974, u s i n g t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n p r e p a r e d by
t h e ~ i l l i n g s u r v e y o r and c o n t a i n e d i n t h e u n f i l e d s u r v e y ,
s
r e f l e c t i n g 357.77 a c r e s . The p o l i c y o f t i t l e i n s u r a n c e w a s
d e l i v e r e d t o Tobacco R i v e r on J u n e 6, 1974. There i s no
e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e boundary s u r v e y was e v e r f i l e d .
Three major a r e a s o f c o n f l i c t e x i s t between t h e p a r t i e s
r e g a r d i n g t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e s u r v e y and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
under which i t was conducted. F i r s t , with respect t o the
area o f l a n d t o be s u r v e y e d , a p p e l l a n t i n s i s t s t h a t r e s p o n -
d e n t s r e q u e s t e d a s u r v e y o f t h e e n t i r e p a r c e l of l a n d .
Respondents, however, c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y r e q u e s t e d a s u r v e y
of o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r problem area of t h e l a n d , t h e meander
l i n e of t h e Tobacco R i v e r , and t h a t a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d a
survey of t h e remainder. Second, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c i r -
cumstances under which t h e s u r v e y w a s c o n d u c t e d , r e s p o n d e n t s
i n s i s t t h a t t h e s u r v e y o r gave a p p e l l a n t a n e s t i m a t e r e g a r d -
i n g t h e c o s t s of t h e survey before contacting respondents.
Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t respondents w e r e furnished an e s t i -
m a t e of t h e c o s t s a f t e r t h e s u r v e y o r had c o n t a c t e d t h e
respondents. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s and r e s p o n d e n t s
deny t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s had knowledge o f a s u r v e y conducted by
a second s u r v e y o r h i r e d by a p p e l l a n t .
The estimate g i v e n by t h e o r i g i n a l s u r v e y o r w a s $2,000
f o r t h e boundary s u r v e y . The s u r v e y b i l l i n q u e s t i o n t o t a l e d
$4,323.63 f o r t h e e x t e r i o r s u r v e y .
Counsel f o r b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e c l a i m f o r
damages i n Count I would c o n s i s t s o l e l y of t h e i n t e r e s t on
t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r two and one-half years.
The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l are:
1. W a s t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y as t o Counts I and I1
s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and t h e l a w of t h e c a s e ?
2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t
p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a s t o Counts I and
II?
3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s
proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 and i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No.
T h e r e a r e p a g e s upon p a g e s o f c h a r g e s and c o u n t e r -
c h a r g e s made i n t h e b r i e f s which would compel a much l o n g e r
o p i n i o n t h a n i s w a r r a n t e d by t h e l a w and f a c t s i n v o l v e d h e r e
i f w e were t o d i g n i f y most o f them w i t h e x t e n d e d d i s c u s s i o n .
Aside from t h e f a c t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e ,
under t h e c o n t r a c t , t o f u r n i s h t i t l e and i n s u r a n c e which
c o u l d n o t b e accomplished w i t h o u t a s u r v e y , t h e c o u r t gave
t o t h e j u r y I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13:
"You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e l a w s which e x i s t a t
t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f making o f a c o n t r a c t , and
where i t i s t o b e performed, e n t e r i n t o and form
p a r t of i t , a s i f t h e y w e r e e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r e d t o
o r i n c o r p o r a t e d i n i t s terms."
T h i s w a s f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l I n s t r u c t i o n No.
1 4 , which i s c o n f u s i n g b u t i s t h e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 11-614,
R.C.M. 1947, and s t a t e s t h e l a w i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e of
t h e making and o r i g i n a l performance d a t e o f t h i s c o n t r a c t .
I n p a r t i t simply s t a t e s :
"Any p e r s o n who d e s i r e s t o . . . s e l l o r t r a n s f e r
any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t o f l a n d , t h e a c r e a g e
which c a n n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d w i t h o u t a s u r v e y , must
cause t h e s a m e t o be surveyed, p l a t t e d , c e r t i f i e d ,
and f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and
r e c o r d e r of t h e c o u n t y i n which s a i d l a n d l i e s ,
.
. . b e f o r e any p a r t - p o r t i o n of t h e same i s
or
sold o r transferred; . .. I t i s unlawful - % for
f u r t h e r s a l e s t o b e made w i t h o u t f u l l compliance
w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r , and t h e s u r -
v e y i n g and p l a t t i n g o f t h e whole t r a c t .. ."
(Emphasis a d d e d . )
The s t a t u t e g o e s on and s t a t e s t h a t t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and
r e c o r d e r s h a l l n o t r e c o r d any deed which p u r p o r t s t o convey
any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t u n l e s s t h e A c t h a s been com-
p l i e d with.
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 16 l e a v e s l i t t l e d o u b t a s t o t h e respon-
s i b i l i t y of t h e p a r t i e s :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d
t h a t Defendants Yoppe would f u r n i s h a p o l i c y of
t i t l e i n s u r a n c e ; i f you f i n d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t
g e t a p o l i c y of t i t l e insurance without a survey,
t h e n you must f i n d t h a t t h e y a r e l i a b l e f o r t h e
reasonable c o s t of such survey."
The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e p a r c e l o f l a n d i s i r r e g u l a r .
S e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e , d o e s
apply t o t h i s kind of a land t r a n s f e r , i.e., i r r e g u l a r and
u n a b l e t o compute a c r e a g e w i t h o u t a s u r v e y . The c o u r t , by
i t s own i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , s h o u l d
have g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on Count I a s a m a t t e r of
law. F a i l u r e t o do s o i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The j u r y v e r -
d i c t on Count I w a s r e n d e r e d c o n t r a r y t o t h e e v i d e n c e and
t h e l a w o f t h e case.
Regarding Count 11, t h e r e i s j u s t no s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i -
b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a " s p l i t " o f t h e f e e due t h e second
s u r v e y o r i n e q u a l p a r t s a s w a s done by t h i s j u r y . No s u r v e y o r
o r any o t h e r w i t n e s 3 t e s t i f i e d a s t o any d i v i s i o n . Attorney
J o e Fennessy t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a g r e e d t o s p l i t
the fee. There w a s t e s t i m o n y as t o estimates and a c t u a l
c o s t s , b u t t h a t was a l l . Additionally, t h e court instructed
t h e j u r y on t h e law o f t h e case a s f o l l o w s :
"You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t c o n t r a c t damages must
be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e i n both t h e i r n a t u r e
and o r i g i n ; damages which a r e n o t c l e a r l y a s -
c e r t a i n a b l e , o r which are a m a t t e r of m e r e
speculation cannot be t h e b a s i s of recovery.
A s a p p l i e d t o t h i s case, t h e damages a l l e g e d
by P l a i n t i f f must b e c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e ,
t h e o f f s e t s c l a i m e d by Defendants must a l s o
b e c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , and t h e burden i s
upon e a c h p a r t y t o s o p r o v e , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
these instructions. "
This i n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i e s with equal f o r c e t o t h e argu-
ment o f f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages by r e s p o n d e n t s a g a i n s t
the appellant. T h e r e was no s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e
on t h i s p o i n t . The v a l u e o f t h e c l a i m e d o f f e r of a p o r t i o n
of t h e l a n d was l a c k i n g . No e v i d e n c e o f a f o r m a l t e n d e r t o
a p p e l l a n t was e v e r shown. There w a s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t
t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t under s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, a
p o r t i o n of an i r r e g u l a r t r a c t could i n f a c t be o f f e r e d o r
t h a t a p p e l l a n t c o u l d b e compelled t o a c c e p t l e s s t h a n i t s
c o n t r a c t b a r g a i n o r be p e n a l i z e d f o r f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e
damages .
The h o l d i n g s of t h i s C o u r t on o t h e r i s s u e s do n o t
w a r r a n t a d i s c u s s i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 and t h e proposed
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 4 . W e would comment, however, t h a t w h i l e
q u o t i n g a s t a t u t e v e r b a t i m may r e c i t e t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w ,
o f t e n t i m e s t h i s p r a c t i c e causes confusion. I n cases where
m u l t i p l e problems o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s are w i t h i n t h e same
s t a t u t e , o r a s t a t u t e i s b a d l y drawn, it i s f a r b e t t e r t o
d e v e l o p your own i n s t r u c t i o n . I n a c l o s e circumstance it
c o u l d be e r r o r t o u s e t h e s t a t u t e , i f f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n
than t h a t it has misled t h e jury.
The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d w i t h
i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment f o r a p p e l l a n t on Count I as a
m a t t e r o f law. Count I1 i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l .
Justice
W concur:
e
2 4.wccd4
Chief J ~ ~ s t i c e
( -
. )bL )Li7
L
Justices
,