BOUCHER v STEFFES

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12207 I N THE SUPREIqE COURT O TI-TE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1972 EDGAR BOUCHER , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -VS - J O E STEFFES , J R . , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A l f r e d B. C o a t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant : W i l l i a m McNamer a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana. F o r Respondent: Gene H u n t l e y a r g u e d , Raker, 24ontana. Submitted: Decided Filed: NOV2 '7 4972 O c t o b e r 20, 1972 'NQV2 7 4972 M r , J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from the d e n i a l of a motion f o r change of venue from Fallon County t o Yellowstone County, Issue: Should t h e question of venue be reexamined when- ever t h e r e i s a change of p a r t i e s defendant? The f a c t s g i v i n g r i s e t o t h i s a c t i o n a r e n o t i n d i s p u t e . On May 4 , 1968, defendant Joe S t e f f e s , Jr, was involved i n an automobile accident i n western North Dakota. h i s father-in-law, Trudo. With him was p l a i n t i f f Edgar Boucher, and one John W. The accident involved a head-on c o l l i s i o n with a v e h i c l e operated by Edward J. Byer. The Byer c a r had been purchased t h a t day from t h e Erwin Heberle Ford Agency a t Baker, Montana, Byer was k i l l e d i n t h e c o l l i s o n and a l l t h r e e occu- pants of defendant's v e h i c l e were i n j u r e d , Following t h e accident defendant S t e f f e s moved h i s home from Baker i n Fallon County, t o Yellowstone County. Trudo f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t defendant S t e f f e s and t h e administ r a t r i x of t h e e s t a t e of Byer i n f e d e r a l c o u r t on February 10, 1970. O t h e same day p l a i n t i f f Boucher f i l e d a g a i n s t t h e same n defendants i n t h e s t a t e c o u r t i n Fallon County. Decedent Byer had no l i a b i l i t y insurance o r o t h e r resources which could be used t o pay a judgment, i f one were rendered a g a i n s t him, A question arose: Whether, i n view of t h e f a c t Byer had purchased t h e c a r t h a t day, t h e insurance p o l i c y of t h e Heberle Ford Agency might a t t a c h by v i r t u e of t h e holding of t h i s Court i n I r i o n v. Glens F a l l s I n s . Co,, 154 Mont, 156, 461 P.2d 199? A f t e r l i t i g a t i o n i n t h e f e d e r a l c o u r t determined t h e Heberle Ford Agency p o l i c y d i d n o t a f f o r d p r o t e c t i o n t o Boucher o r Trudo, t h e a d m i n i s t r a t r i x of ~ y e r ' se s t a t e p e t i t i o n e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r discharge on t h e grounds t h e r e were no a s s e t s , no insurance, and t h e r e f o r e , no reason t o continue with t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of t h e e s t a t e , The c o u r t dismissed t h e e s t a t e a s a p a r t y defendant with p r e j u d i c e , Defendant S t e f f e s then moved f o r a change i n t h e p l a c e of t r i a l t o Yellowstone County on t h e grounds t h a t he had a r i g h t t o t r i a l i n t h e county of h i s residence; t h a t the a c c i d e n t had occurred i n the s t a t e of North Dakota; t h a t he could n o t t h e r e t o f o r e have moved f o r a change of p l a c e of t r i a l because defendant to a d m i n i s t r a t r i x was a proper p a r t y / t h e a c t i o n and a r e s i d e n t of Fallon County; t h a t t h e j o i n d e r of defendant a d m i n i s t r a t r i x was c o n d i t i o n a l - i n i t i o and because of h e r voluntary d i s m i s s a l t h e ab p l a i n t i f f had not met t h e l e g a l requirements of pleading and proving a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t h e r i n order t o maintain venue, o r i n the a l t e r n a t i v e did not bring the action against her i n good f a i t h i n t h e l e g a l sense required t o e s t a b l i s h and maintain venue i n Fallon County. Further, t h a t t r i a l i n Fallon County would be p r e j u d i c i a l t o defendant S t e f f e s because p l a i n t i f f i s a r e s i d e n t of Fallon County and t h a t t h e proper county f o r t r i a l i s Yellowstone County. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e motion and t h i s appeal i s taken from t h e r u l i n g , Defendant c i t e s no Montana a u t h o r i t y t o support h i s posit i o n t h a t where t h e r e a r e m u l t i p l e defendants when t h e cause i s i n s t i t u t e d and where the r e s i d e n t defendants a r e dropped, t h e remaining defendant o r defendants have a r i g h t t o change t h e venue t o t h e i r jurisdiction. He n o t e s , quoting Rapp v, Graham, 145 Mont. 371, 401 P.2d 579, t h a t t h e r i g h t of a defendant f o r t r i a l i n t h e county of h i s residence i s an important r i g h t . W agree e with t h e r u l e s s e t f o r t h t h e r e , but t h e f a c t s i t u a t i o n s of t h e two c a s e s a r e not s i m i l a r . defendant, Rapp was a c o n t r a c t c a s e with j u s t one Nor a r e we persuaded by t h e out of j u r i s d i c t i o n c a s e s c i t e d by defendant: Gunnoe v. West V i r g i n i a Poultry Co-op Ass'n, 115 W.Va, 87, 174 S.E. 691, 93 A . L , R , 944; Turner v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App, 414, 415 P.2d 129; L e s t e r v , Rose, 147 W.Va, 575, 130 S.E.2d 80; Delaney v , Atterbury, 189 Okla. 361, 116 P.2d. 968, ~ o n t a n a ' svenue s t a t u t e s , T i t l e 93, Ch. 29, R.C,M, 1947, were taken from t h e s t a t e of C a l i f o r n i a and t h a t j u r i s d i c t i o n has r u l e d on t h e very problem presented t o us here. Before d i s c u s s i n g t h e r u l e s e t f o r t h by a s e r i e s of C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s , we n o t e t h a t Kansas e a r l y adopted t h e C a l i f o r n i a view, v. Brown, 78 Kan. 284, 97 I?. 479. Hawkins The C a l i f o r n i a view a l s o appears t o be followed by f e d e r a l c a s e s , where t h e question a r i s e s a s t o whether t h e p l a i n t i f f has joined i n order t o prevent removal. a r e s i d e n t of t h e s t a t e For a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e f e d e r a l view s e e Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, Vol. 2 , 5 3.71. A long l i n e of C a l i f o r n i a c a s e s has followed an e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e d r u l e t h a t a motion f o r a change of venue w i l l be determined by t h e s t a t u s of t h e p a r t i e s and pleadings a t t h e time t h e moving p a r t y appears i n the a c t i o n . Remington Sewing Machine Co. v, Cole, 62 Cal. 311(1882); Ferguson v. Koerber, 69 Cal.App. 47, 230 P. 476; W a f t v. I n n i s , 57 Cel.App~'637; 135 P.2d 29; C a l i f o r n i a C o l l e c t i o n Agency v. Fontana, 61 cal.App.l;d 648, 143 P.2d 507, 510; White v. Kaiser Frazer Corp. 100 Cal,Appe3ct/ 754, 224 P,2d 833;Freeman v. Dowling, 219 Cal. 213, 25 P.2d 980; Bancroft's Code P r a c t i c e and Remedies, V. 2, 5 1006, p, 1447. W f i n d the r u l e a s s t a t e d i n C a l i f o r n i a C o l l e c t i o n Agency e most s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e s t h e r u l e t h a t we adopt h e r e i n : 11 I n our opinion t h e r u l e , supported by reason and by a u t h o r i t y , i s t h a t upon t h e hearing of t h e motion f o r change of venue under t h e circumstances presented h e r e , t h e r e a l i s s u e f o r determination by t h e t r i a l c o u r t was whether p l a i n t i f f , i n j o i n i n g t h e r e s i d e n t defendant a s a p a r t y , had reasonable grounds f o r t h e b e l i e f i n good f a i t h t h a t p l a i n t i f f had a cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e r e s i d e n t defendant. The decision of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. I1 We Concur: judge Justice Cas Associate

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.