STROMBERG BROWN v SEATON RANCH C

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12226 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1972 E. C. STROMBERG, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , SEATON RANCH CONPAIfY and DOROTHY M. SFATON, Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . ............................................... M T BROWN, AT P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, SEATON RANCIT COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n , 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 Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P a u l G. Hatf i e l d , .Tudge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : F o r P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t : Swanberg, Koby & Swanberg, G r e a t F a l l - s , Montana. R a n d a l l Swanberg a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana, F o r Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s : Graybi-11, G r a y b i l l , O s t r e m & Warner, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. Donald Ostrem a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. J. Vaughan Barron a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana. F o r P l a i n t i f f and Respondent : H a r r i s , Jackson & U t i c k , Helena, Montana. L. V. H a r r i s a r g u e d , Helena, Montana. Filed : (1 19 !I..'$ Submitted: Decided : June 20, 1972 T8T 19 107$ 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 Court, This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, Hon. Paul G. H a t f i e l d presiding, without a j u r y . Judgment was e n t e r e d upon f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law which found t h e p l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, was t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause o f t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e G l a c i e r Colony of H u t t e r i t e s f o r $810,000 and e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n t h e amount of $40,500, t o g e t h e r w i t h a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of $3,783.56, p l u s c o s t s . P l a i n t i f f E. C. Stromberg, a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , f i l e d a n a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton t o r e c o v e r a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch. L a t e r p l a i n t i f f Matt Brown, a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant Seaton Ranch Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n , f o r recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r t h e s a l e of t h e same ranch. Defendants moved t o have t h e two c a s e s c o n s o l i d a t e d under Rule 4 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ. P. Both p l a i n t i f f s , r e s i s t e d b u t t h e c a s e s were c o n s o l i d a t e d by t h e c o u r t . Seaton Ranch Company owned a l a r g e ranch n e a r F o r t Shaw i n Cascade County. Ed Seaton, husband of defendant Dorothy Seaton, managed t h e ranch u n t i l h i s d e a t h i n 1965. T h e r e a f t e r Dorothy Seaton took over t h e management and became owner of a l l t h e s t o c k i n the corporation, A f t e r h e r husband's d e a t h , Dorothy Seaton s o l d t h e machinery and p a r t of t h e l i v e s t o c k and e n t e r e d i n t o approximately twenty nonexclusive l i s t i n g s w i t h v a r i o u s r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e ranch, i n c l u d i n g a l i s t i n g w i t h E.C. Stromberg d a t e d May 17, 1966, and a l i s t i n g t o Matt Brown, d a t e d December 9,1966. Stromberg's l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t contained no e x p i r a t i o n d a t e and was t o remain open u n t i l e i t h e r t h e c o n t r a c t was terminated o r t h e ranch was s o l d . The Brown l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t had an e x p i r a - t i o n d a t e of June 15, 1967, although a b l a n k space was l e f t i n t h e l a s t paragraph of t h e Brown l i s t i n g r e l a t i n g t o t h e number of days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e d u r i n g which Brown could r e cover a commission i n t h e event of a s a l e . Both Stromberg and Brown s o l i c i t e d t h e G l a c i e r Colony. Soon a f t e r o b t a i n i n g h i s l i s t i n g on May 1 7 , 1966, Stromberg cont a c t e d a group of p r o s p e c t i v e customers and imparted t o them a l l of t h e p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e Seaton ranch. Among t h e s e p r o s p e c t i v e customers was M r . John Entz of t h e G l a c i e r Colony. M r . Entz, s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of t h e G l a c i e r Colony, had advised Stromberg p r i o r t o May 1966, t h a t t h e G l a c i e r Colony d e s i r e d land i n t h e Great F a l l s a r e a . e s t a t e l i s t i n g from M r s . After receiving the r e a l Seaton, Stromberg made two p e r s o n a l v i s i t s t o t h e G l a c i e r Colony, t h e f i r s t i n May o r June 1966, and t h e second sometime i n t h e s p r i n g of 1967. Both times he gave informa'tion about t h e Seaton ranch t o M r . Entz and attempted t o i n t e r e s t him i n t h e u l t i m a t e purchase of t h e ranch. Stromberg a l s o made s e v e r a l telephone c a l l s t o Entz r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y and wrote two l e t t e r s t o Entz d a t e d January 5 , 1967 and June 2 7 , 1967, b o t h of which d i s c u s s e d t h e Seaton ranch. M r . Entz v i s i t e d Stromberg's o f f i c e on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s , t h e l a s t v i s i t b e i n g on J u l y 12, 1967. I n J u l y 1967, some members o f t h e G l a c i e r Colony went t o ~ t r o m b e r g ' s o f f i c e i n Great F a l l s , expressed a d e s i r e t o b e shown t h e Seaton r a n c h , and asked f o r an appointment f o r t h a t purpose. Stromberg never made t h e appointment nor showed them t h e ranch. The l a s t c o n t a c t by Stromberg w i t h e i t h e r Mrs. Seaton o r t h e o f f i c e r s of t h e G l a c i e r Colony was on J u l y 1 2 , 1967, when he wrote a l e t t e r t o M r . Entz apologizing f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o make an appointment. ~tromberg's testimony a t t r i a l was: "Like I t o l d you b e f o r e , you reach a s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t on c o n t a c t s and work with people. There i s some point t h e r e where they i n d i c a t e d they were going t o come back, I was c e r t a i n l y n o t going t o go t h e r e t h e next day and lead them by t h e hand and say ' l e t ' s go'. I t Matt Brown s p e c i a l i z e d i n ranch p r o p e r t i e s and during t h e period from 1965 t o December 1966, he obtained t h r e e nonexclusive l i s t i n g s t o s e l l t h e Seaton ranch, one from Ed Seaton and two from Dorothy Seaton. He had already spent considerable time on t h i s property when he received t h e l i s t i n g i n question h e r e . P r i o r t o t h e June 15, 1967, e x p i r a t i o n of h i s l i s t i n g , Brown on o r about May 24, 1967, i n response t o a c a l l from t h e Glacier C,olony drove t o t h e colony and spent two t o two and one-half hours g i v i n g the l e a d e r s of t h e colony information on one o t h e r ranch and complete d e t a i l s on the Seaton ranch. They d i d n o t i n d i c a t e they had ever seen the Seaton ranch but showed an interest i n it. The only d e t e r r e n t t o t h e i r i n t e r e s t was an outstanding l e a s e of t h e farm land t o one Charles Jacobsen, but they advised Matt Brown t h a t he could overcome that obstacle. Upon leaving t h e colony, Brown advised them t o c o n t a c t him when they were ready t o look a t t h e ranch. Within a day o r two a f t e r e n l i s t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier Colony, on May 27, 1967, Brown went t o s e e Dorothy Seaton a t t h e ranch and advised h e r t h e Glacier Colony was i n t e r e s t e d i n buying t h e ranch and a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t she would n o t o b j e c t t o s e l l i n g t o Hutterites. Brown then went t o t h e home of Charles Jacobsen, t h e l e s s e e of t h e Seaton ranch farm land i n F a i r f i e l d , Montana, and attempted t o f i n d o u t what i t would take t o buy out t h e lessee's interest. He was unsuccessful i n obtaining a f i g u r e , Subsequently, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony went t o ~ a c o b s e n ' shome a t F a i r f i e l d , t h e i r purpose being t o d e a l d i r e c t l y with him i n attempting t o buy h i s leasehold i n t e r e s t . o f f e r e d him $60,000, b u t he demanded $80,000. They A t t h a t time they advised Jacobsen they were buying t h e Seaton ranch. A few days a f t e r h i s v i s i t s t o Mrs. Seaton and t o Charles Jacobsen, Brown had another telephone c a l l from t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony i n d i c a t i n g they were i n Great F a l l s and wanted t o go out t o look a t the ranch. This was on June 2 1 , 1967, f i v e days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e i n ~ r o w n ' s l i s t i n g . Brown met t h e colony l e a d e r s and drove them i n h i s c a r t o t h e Seaton ranch. He spent the e n t i r e afternoon showing t h e ranch, a r r i v i n g a t 2 p.m. 7:30 t o 8:00 p.m. and r e t u r n i n g t o h i s home between He showed t h e l e a d e r s of t h e colony a l a r g e p a r t of t h e ranch and they e x h i b i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n seeing t h e e n t i r e ranch property. The&owing of t h e ranch on June 2 1 was c u t s h o r t when ~ r o w n ' s automobile was damaged when i t s l i p p e d i n t o a r u t , b u t he was a b l e t o d r i v e t h e l e a d e r s back t o Great F a l l s . To complete t h e showing, arrangements were made f o r Brown t o take t h e H u t t e r i t e s t o b r e a k f a s t the next morning and then take them back t o the ranch and complete t h e showing. However, e a r l y t h e next morning, one of t h e H u t t e r i t e s c a l l e d Brown a t h i s home and s t a t e d t h a t they had received a c a l l and would have t o r e t u r n t o t h e colony and so would not be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o t h e Seaton ranch. The next day, June 22, 1967, Brown mailed a l e t t e r t o John Entz expressing disappointment t h a t he had been unable t o show them t h e e n t i r e ranch, o f f e r i n g f u r t h e r information and urging them t o make a cash o f f e r . A day o r two l a t e r Brown c a l l e d M r s . h e r e i t h e r a t t h e ranch o r a t h i s o f f i c e . Seaton and asked t o meet She requested t h a t he meet h e r a t Weissman's s t o r e i n Great F a l l s , a s she did n o t want t o meet him a t t h e ranch. A t t h i s meeting Brown reported t o h e r h i s a c t i v i t y i n showing t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony l e a d e r s and t h e i r f a i l u r e t o meet him f o r t h e b r e a k f a s t and f u r t h e r showing of t h e ranch property. A week o r t e n days l a t e r , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g no r e p l y t o h i s l e t t e r of June 22, Brown c a l l e d t h e Glacier Colony t o s e e i f they d i d n o t want t o come back t o s e e t h e Seaton ranch again, He t a l k e d t o one of t h e l e a d e r s and was t o l d "forget i t , now, Brown, I I A f t e r Brown was t o l d t o "forget it", he took no f u r t h e r a c t i o n , thinking t h e H u t t e r i t e s would w a i t u n t i l t h e Jacobsen farm l e a s e had expired and t h a t they would come back t o him. It was unknown t o him t h a t t h e colony had voted t o buy t h e ranch and had continued t o v i s i t t h e Seaton ranch throughout t h e balance of t h e summer of 1967, and during t h e w i n t e r of 1968. Neither d i d he know t h a t t h e l e a d e r s of the Glacier Colony during t h e same period of time were n e g o t i a t i n g d i r e c t l y with Mrs. Seaton, without going through him, doing s o one time i n company w i t h another broker, Leonard Doran, and on s e v e r a l occasions by themselves, It was a l s o unknown t o Brown t h a t Mrs. Seaton was c o n t a c t i n g Charles Jacobsen during t h e f a l l of 1967 and w i n t e r of 1968, t o determine whether o r n o t he would l e t h i s l e a s e prevent a s a l e of t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony. The colony l e a d e r s were n e g o t i a t i n g d i r e c t l y with Dorothy Seaton o r h e r f i s c a l agent, a brother-in-law. Stromberg were aware of t h e s e d e a l i n g s , Neither Brown nor During t h i s time she s o l d a p a r c e l of f i v e t o s i x thousand a c r e s f o r around $40,000 and a p a r c e l of 160 a c r e s f o r $6,000; and i n March 1968 s o l d t h e balance of t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier H u t t e r i t e s f o r $810,000, s u b j e c t t o the leasehold i n t e r e s t of Charles Jacobsen. Leonard Doran, a r e a l e s t a t e broker, had a l i s t i n g i n 1966 b u t when he went t o t h e ranch with t h e colony members he had no valid listing. The colony l e a d e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was t h e i r broker b u t admitted they worked around him i n t h e end, A f t e r t r i a l the d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered t h e following findings of f a c t and cod.usions of law: "FINDINGS O FACT F "1. Defendants1 motions f o r d i s m i s s a l should be denied, and p l a i n t i f f , Matt ~ r o w n ' so f f e r e d evidence of excerpts from t h e deposition of Dorothy M. Seaton should be received. "2. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, i s and has been a r e a l e s t a t e broker, licensed by t h e S t a t e of Montana s i n c e 1958, and engaged i n t h e s a l e of ranch p r o p e r t i e s a t Great F a l l s , Montana, and i n t h e surrounding a r e a . "3. Defendant, Seaton Ranch Company, i s a Montana corporation which owned a l a r g e ranch, known a s t h e Seaton Ranch, i n Cascade County, Montana, near F o r t Shaw, u n t i l March 27, 1968, and defendant, Dorothy M. Seaton, i s and has been t h e owner of t h e e n t i r e b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n s a i d corporation and i n complete c o n t r o l of t h e corporation. On December 9, 1967, defendants employed p l a i n "4. t i f f , Matt Brown, a s a r e a l e s t a t e broker t o s e l l t h e Seaton ranch, under a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t of employment. The w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t provided t h a t Matt Brown had a 'non-exclusive1 r i g h t t o s e l l t h e ranch u n t i l June 15, 1967, and l i s t e d a p r i c e of $900,000. The c o n t r a c t , a l s o provided: I I f you o r any o t h e r agents o r brokers cooperating with you f i n d a buyer ready and willing t o enter i n t o a deal for said price and terms o r any such o t h e r p r i c e and terms a s I may a c c e p t , o r any time during your employment you p l a c e m i n c o n t a c t with a e buyer t o o r through whom a t any time w i t h i n days a f t e r terminating s a i d employment, I may s e l l o r convey s a i d property, I agree t o pay you i n cash f o r your s e r v i c e s a corn- mission equal i n amount- t o 5 % of the selling price. I * The c o n t r a c t f u r t h e r provided: I I agree t o pay any sum a Court may adjudge a s reasonable a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s i n c a s e s u i t o r a c t i o n i s f i l e d on t h i s c o n t r a c t . ' The space permitting t h e i n s e r t i o n of t h e period of time during which t h e broker would be e n t i t l e d t o a commission f o r a s a l e consummated t o a p a r t y with whom t h e broker placed t h e s e l l e r ' i n c o n t a c t 1 was n o t s p e c i f i c a l l y discussed by t h e p a r t i e s a t the time they entered i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , but t h e conduct of t h e res p e c t i v e p a r t i e s and t h e course of d e a l i n g between them, viewed i n the l i g h t of t h e customs and usages i n t h e s a l e of l a r g e ranches, c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t i t was t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t o allow a reasonable t i m e a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e during which t h e broker would be e n t i t l e d t o t h e commission. "5. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, had had two e a r l i e r non-exclusive l i s t i n g s on t h e Seaton ranch, before he obtained t h e l i s t i n g on December 9, 1966, under which he had obtained a g r e a t d e a l of information and done a g r e a t d e a l of work, which had given him an e x t e n s i v e f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e d e t a i l s of t h e ranch and permitted him t o r e p r e s e n t i t and d i s c u s s i t with prospective buyers. "6.011 o r about May 26, 1967, before the expirat i o n d a t e of h i s l i s t i n g , Matt Brown received a t e l e $me c a l l from t h e Glacier Colony of H u t t e r i t e s , n e a r Cut Bank, Montana, i n q u i r i n g a s t o t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of l a r g e ranches. On May 26, 1967, he went from Great F a l l s t o Cut Bank and attempted t o reach t h e colony, b u t took a wrong road and was compelled t o s t a y overn i t e i n t h e Glacier Hotel i n Cut Bank. The n e x t momi n g , on May 27, 1967, he went t o t h e headquarters of t h e colony and m e t with the l e a d e r s of t h e colony, and gave them information on one o t h e r ranch and det a i l e d information on t h e Seaton ranch. The l e a d e r s of t h e colony expressed a keen i n t e r e s t i n t h e Seaton ranch, having only one o b j e c t i o n t h a t t h e r e was a l e a s e on t h e farm land on t h e ranch t o a Charles Jacobsen which would n o t terminate u n t i l t h e end of t h e 1970 and they urged Matt Brown t o take a c t i o n crop season t o attempt t o dispose of t h e outstanding leasehold i n t e r e s t , a s s u r i n g him they would buy t h e ranch i f he would do so. -- -- "7. Within a day o r two a f t e r h e had i n t e r e s t e d t h e Glacier Colony i n t h e Seaton ranch, and before t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e of h i s l i s t i n g on June 15, 1967, Matt Brown went t o t h e Seaton ranch and informed Dorothy M. Seaton of t h e i n t e r e s t of the Glacier Colony i n t h e purchase of t h e ranch, securing h e r assurance t h a t she would n o t o b j e c t t o s e l l i n g t o H u t t e r i t e s . He a l s o made two v i s i t s t o Charles Jacobsen i n attempts t o make a d e a l t o buy t h e outstanding leasehold i n t e r e s t i n t h e farm land h e l d by him. "8. O June 21, 1967, Matt Brown met t h e l e a d e r s n of t h e Glacier Colony i n Great F a l l s , and drove them out t o t h e Seaton ranch, where he spent a s u b s t a n t i a l amount of t i m e going over t h e ranch with them and showing i t t o them. A f t e r experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g h i s c a r stuck, h e took them back t o Great F a l l s , and made arrangements t o take them t o b r e a k f a s t , t h e next morning, and then t a k e them back out t o f i n i s h looking a t t h e ranch. "9. The next morning, June 22, 1967, Matt Brown received a telephone c a l l from one of t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony advising t h a t personal matters r e quired t h a t they r e t u r n t o t h e colony, n e a r Cut Bank, and t h a t they would n o t be a b l e t o go back t o f i n i s h looking a t t h e Seaton ranch. L a t e r , t h e same day, Matt Brown wrote a l e t t e r t o John Entz, Secretary-Treasurer of t h e Glacier Colony, expressing h i s disappointment t h a t t h e H u t t e r i t e s had had t o r e t u r n t o t h e colony b e f o r e seeing t h e balance of t h e Seaton ranch, and a s s u r i n g him of h i s i n t e r e s t i n n e g o t i a t i n g t h e terms of a sale. "10. Soon a f t e r June 22, 1967, Matt Brown c a l l e d t h e Glacier Colony on t h e phone t o ask t h a t he be allowed t o continue n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch, and he was advised t h a t they were n o t i n t e r e s t e d 'to forget i t , I -- "11, Following t h e i r v i s i t t o t h e Seaton ranch with Matt Brown on June 21, 1967, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony r e p e a t e d l y and continuously returned t o t h e Seaton ranch, examining i t more minutely, and these i n s p e c t i o n s continued a t l e a s t a s l a t e a s November, 1967, when they were a b l e t o i n s p e c t t h e stand of t h e w i n t e r wheat crop. On a t l e a s t two of t h e s e occasions they met with Mrs. Seaton a t t h e ranch t o d i s c u s s t h e purchase of t h e ranch. "12. I t appears t h a t t h e Glacier Colony received some information concerning t h e Seaton ranch from E.C. Stromberg p r i o r t o t h e a c t i v i t y of Matt Brown with r e s p e c t t o t h e Glacier Colony, b u t E. C. Stromberg never aroused s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e Glacier Colony t o make them request a showing, and t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l e v i dence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Glacier Colony ever had any genuine i n t e r e s t i n buying t h e Seaton ranch a s a r e s u l t of anything done by E. C , Stromberg. "13. I t appears t h a t some members of t h e Glacier Colony v i s i t e d t h e Seaton ranch during t h e summer of 1967, i n company with one Leonard Doran, a r e a l e s t a t e broker who had previously had a non-exclusive l i s t i n g which had expired i n 1966, with no provision t h a t i t could have any e f f e c t whatsoever beyond i t s e x p i r a t i o n d a t e unless e a r n e s t money had been deposited. There i s no c r e d i b l e evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g s p e c i f i c d a t e s f o r any v i s i t s of t h e Glacier Colony H u t t e r i t e s t o t h e Seaton ranch p r i o r t o t h e i r v i s i t with Matt Brown on June 21, 1967, and t h e r e i s no c r e d i b l e evidence t h a t t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony became genuinely i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e purchase of t h e Seaton ranch a s t h e r e s u l t of any a c t i v i t i e s by Leonard Doran, o r otherwise, p r i o r t o t h e time Matt Brown v i s i t e d t h e Glacier Colony on May 27, 1967. "14. Dorothy M, Seaton had, by h e r own e s t i m a t e , given twenty non-exclusive l i s t i n g s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch between t h e death of h e r husband i n 1965 and t h e end of 1966, and was w i l l i n g t o s e l l t h e ranch a t a l l times h e r e i n concerned. The l i s t i n g given t o Matt Brown on December 9 , 1966, was t h e l a s t l i s t i n g given. "15. During t h e f a l l of 1967, Dorothy M. Seaton s o l d c e r t a i n p a r c e l s of t h e ranch which had been included i n Matt Brown s l i s t i n g , s e p a r a t e l y from the r e s t of t h e one of 5,000 a c r e s bringing a t l e a s t $25,000 o r ranch $30,000, and one of 160 a c r e s bringing a t l e a s t $6,000. -- "16. During t h e w i n t e r of 1967-1968, Dorothy M. Seaton was absent from t h e S t a t e of Montana f o r a cons i d e r a b l e period of time, being i n C a l i f o r n i a , and, during t h i s time, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony of H u t t e r i t e s n e g o t i a t e d f o r t h e purchase of the Seaton ranch with h e r brother-in-law, Robert W. Gronberg, a banker i n Choteau, Montana, who had a q u a l i f y i n g share of s t o c k i n t h e Seaton Ranch Company and was Vice P r e s i d e n t , and who was a l s o M r s . Seaton's a d v i s e r i n f i n a n c i a l matters. "17. A f t e r s e v e r a l meetings i n t h e bank of Robert W. Gronberg, i n Choteau, a s a l e of t h e Seaton Ranch from t h e Seaton Ranch Company t o t h e Glacier Colony was consummated on March 27, 1968, f o r a p r i c e of $810,000, subj.ect t o t h e outstanding l e a s e of Charles Jacobsen, n o t including t h e p a r t s of t h e ranch which had been previously disposed o f , and without t h e payment of any r e a l e s t a t e commission. "18. The conduct of Dorothy M. Seaton, subsequent t o being informed of t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier Colony i n buying t h e Seaton ranch, i n l a t e May o r e a r l y June, 1967, e x h i b i t e d an i n t e n t i o n and design t o exclude Matt Brown from f u r t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony f o r t h e purpose of avoiding t h e payment of a r e a l e s t a t e commission, which i n t e n t i o n and design were pursued u n t i l the s a l e was consummated. "19. The a c t i v i t i e s of Matt Brown, and p a r t i c u l a r l y h i s a c t i v i t i e s from May 26, 1967, through June 22, 1967, were t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of the s a l e of t h e Seaton Ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony. "20. Under a l l of the circumstances, and i n view of t h e c o n t i n u i t y of t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e eventual purchaser and t h e c o n t i n u i t y of t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h e period of time from June 15, 1967 t o March 2 7 , 1968, i s a reasonable time t o be allowed during which Matt Brown would be e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n connection with a s a l e t o a buyer with whom he had put t h e s e l l e r i n c o n t a c t . "21. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, has been compelled t o employ a t t o r n e y s t o prosecute t h i s a c t i o n , and h i s a t t o r n e y s were required t o expend a t l e a s t 144,5 hours i n t h e prosecution of t h e c a s e , n o t including two days p r e - t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n , two days i n t r i a l , and t i m e subsequent, and s a i d s e r v i c e s a r e of a reasonable v a l u e of $3,783.56. "CONCLUSIONS OF LAW "1. The e f f o r t s of p l a i n t i f f Matt Brown were t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch from t h e Seaton Ranch Company t o t h e Glacier Colony, a t a p r i c e of $810,000, which p r i c e was w i t h i n t h e contemplation of t h e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t between t h e Seaton Ranch Company and Matt Brown, and Matt Brown i s e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n t h e sum of $40,500.00 "2. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, i s e n t i t l e d t o a f u r t h e r sum i n t h e amount of $3,783.56, a s and f o r h i s a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s h e r e i n , t o g e t h e r with h i s c o s t s incurred." P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t E. C. Stromberg r a i s e s these i s s u e s on appeal: 1. The c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h a t E. C. Stromberg had t h e only v a l i d a n d # l e g a l r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g t o s e l l t h e Seaton ranch during March 1968. 2. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Matt Brown r a t h e r than E. C. Stromberg was t h e e f f i c i e n t and procuring cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e Glacier H u t t e r i t e Colony. 3. The c a u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h a t Mrs. Dorothy Seaton f r a u d u l e n t l y and/or i n bad f a i t h intervened and prevented E. C. Stromberg from concluding t h e aforementioned s a l e . Defendant-appellants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton r a i s e t h e s e i s s u e s on appeal: 1. Whether t h e evidence on record supports t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , more p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e following: (a) That, p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t Matt Brown informed Dorothy Seaton of an i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier Colony of t h e H u t t e r i t e Order i n purchasing t h e property of t h e Seaton Ranch Company. (b) That M r s . Seaton had design and i n t e n t i o n t o exclude Brown from n e g o t i a t i o n s regarding t h e s a l e of t h e ranch f o r t h e purpose of avoiding t h e payment of r e a l t o r ' s commission t o Brown. 2. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Brown was t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony. 3. Whether during t h e t e r m of Brown's l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t he found a buyer ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o e n t e r i n t o a "deal" f o r t h e purchase of t h e Seaton ranch property and i f n o t , whether h i s f a i l u r e t o do s o b a r s him from recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e commission. 4, Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g judgment a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l defendant, Dorothy M. Seaton. A s i s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e summary of t h e f a c t s , t h e r e was an unusual amount of evidence presented t o t h e t r i a l judge which r e s u l t e d i n numerous c o n f l i c t s i n t h e evidence, H was t h e e one who had t h e only opportunity t o s e e and hear a l l witnesses. Each p a r t y makes a s t r o n g argument t h a t t h e s e f a c t s and circums t a n c e s favor h i s p o s i t i o n . Yet, a s has been s t a t e d by t h i s Court too many times t a r e q u i r e c i t a t i o n , i t i s not t h i s Court's province t o review t h e record of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine whether o r not we agree with t h e conclusions reached, i f supported by t h e evidence. W must indulge t h e presumption t h a t t h e judge ment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d unless t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of evidence a g a i n s t i t when viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , i n t h i s c a s e p l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t Matt Brown. with t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o make t h i s showing, The burden r e s t s W do n o t f i n d t h a t e they have c a r r i e d t h e burden. The p r i n c i p a l argument of Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton i s grounded on t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e chain of events which occurred a f t e r t h e primary t e r m of Matt Brown's c o n t r a c t expired on June 15, 1967, must be viewed a s i r r e l e v a n t and t h a t t h e evidence must show Brown produced a ready, w i l l i n g , and a b l e buyer before t h a t date. This p o s i t i o n i s urged under t h e holding i n F l i n d e r s v. G i l b e r t , 141 Mont. 442, 378 P,2d 385, which they contend has t h e e f f e c t of rendering a l l nonexclusive l i s t i n g s s u b j e c t t o t h e standard of r e q u i r i n g t h e broker t o be t h e procuring cause by producing a buyer ready, w i l l i n g , and a b l e before a commission w i l l be required t o be paid r e g a r d l e s s of t h e l a s t paragraph of t h e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t which governs t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e term of t h e primary c o n t r a c t expires. W do n o t q u a r r e l with F l i n d e r s o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e e f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n t h a t case. W do n o t agree with t h e broad e a p p l i c a t i o n given t o F l i n d e r s by a p p e l l a n t s here. Brbefly, t h a t case involves a d i s p u t e between two brokers whose l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t s had n o t expired and t h e Court h e l d t h a t t h e paragraph s i m i l a r t o t h e one i n d i s p u t e here d i d n o t apply i n t h a t c a s e because p l a i n t i f f ' s employment had not terminated a t t h e time t h e s a l e was made through broker Hunt. And, by way of dictum, the c o u r t observed t h a t t h e paragraph which governed t h e r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r e x p i r a t i o n of t h e l i s t i n g , even though i t had no a p p l i c a t i o n , was consonant with a paragraph t h a t was s t r i c k e n , which paragraph contained exclusive c o n t r a c t provisions. This was found t o bear on t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s i n t h a t c a s e , I t would be d i f f i c u l t t o apply t h a t standard t o a l l nonexclu- s i v e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t s , such a s i n the p r e s e n t c a s e , when i t appears no s u b s t a n t i a l language was s t r i c k e n . I t i s possible t o e n t e r i n t o a nonexclusive l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t with t h i s type of p r o t e c t i o n afforded f o r a time a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e agreement. See Annotation, 27 ALR2d 1408. Each c a s e would have t o be examined on i t s own circumstances. But, more important h e r e i s t h e d e c l a r a t i o n by t h e Court i n F l i n d e r s t h a t t h e r e was no bad f a i t h o r fraud by e i t h e r p l a i n t i f f o r defendant, and t h e commission was paid. I f t h e f i n d i n g on fraud o r bad f a i t h had been t o t h e c o n t r a r y , then c e r t a i n l y t h e judgment would n o t have been affirmed i n Hunt's favor. Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 18 found bad f a i t h i n t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n and exclusion of Matt Brown from productive n e g o t i a t i o n s by t h e s e l l e r , which continued u n t i l t h e s a l e was consummated. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l d i r e c t and c i r - cumstantial evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s finding. This f i n d i n g i s strengthened by s t r o n g evidence of bad f a i t h on t h e p a r t of the buyers working i n concert with t h e s e l l e r , W cannot overlook the f a c t t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s cooperation made e i t l e s s d i f f i c u l t t o achieve t h e exclusion, and p a r t i c u l a r l y when t h e f i n a n c i a l gain from t h i s type of a c t i v i t y enured t o t h e b e n e f i t of both s e l l e r and buyer. There i s c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g a s between p l a i n t i f f Brown and p l a i n t i f f Stromberg. Both were equally e n t i t l e d t o s e l l t h e property and both were proceeding i n a good f a i t h e f f o r t t o do so. Even though ~ t r o m b e r g ' s l i s t i n g had n o t expired, t h i s i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g a s between t h e two p l a i n t i f f s under t h e circumstances of t h i s case. A s t h e evidence demonstrates, Stromberg worked hard with t h e buyers, a s did Brown, over a period of time. However, Stromberg's r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e G l a c i e r Colony became impaired and he relaxed h i s e f f o r t and f a i l e d t o c a r r y through and show t h e property t o t h e Colony. B h i s own testimony he was not prepared t o "take y them by t h e hand"; he f e l t a s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t had been reached. About t h i s time Brown d i d show the property and kept a f t e r a l l parties trying t o negotiate a sale. The law i s c l e a r t h a t i f ~ r o w n ' sprimary l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t expired during a c t i v e negotiat i o n s he could not be excluded, This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n t h i s c a s e where t h e c o u r t found Brown d i d not r e l a x h i s e f f o r t s b u t was prevented by t h e a c t i o n s of t h e defendant from proceeding during a c t u a l n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t d i d r e s u l t i n a s a l e . See: Bartsas Realty, Inc. v. Leverton, 82 Nev.6, 409 P.2d 627; F l i n d e r s v. G i l b e r t , 141 Mont. 442, 378 P.2d 385; 43 A.L.R. 1096; 46 ALR2d 854; Shober v. Blackford, 46 Mont, 194, 127 P. 329. The reasonableness of t h e time involved i n t h i s case has a l s o been questioned by defendants. Under usual circumstances time allowed t o p r o t e c t t h e broker a f t e r e x p i r a t i o n of t h e p r i n c i p a l l i s t i n g under a p r o t e c t i v e paragraph, i f no time period i s named, i s held t o be a reasonable time, Reasonable time i n t r a n s a c t i o n s of t h i s type i s determined by t h e n a t u r e and c h a r a c t e r of the s e r v i c e t o be rendered, magnitude of t h e undertaking, t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , and a l l t h e f a c t s and circumstances of t h e case. 12 C.J.S. Brokers 5 88, p. 203. Under a l l the circumstances of t h i s c a s e i t would appear t h a t t h i s t e s t has been met. Concerning defendants' i s s u e No. 4 r e l a t i n g t o t h e personal l i a b i l i t y of Dorothy Seaton f o r payment of t h e r e a l e s t a t e commission, i t i s abundantly c l e a r from the evidence t h a t Dorothy Seaton i s t h e a l t e r ego of Seaton Ranch Company by reason of h e r ownership of t h e e n t i r e b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . Under such circumstances e q u i t y demands t h a t t h e Court p i e r c e t h e corporate v e i l . Accordingly defendant Dorothy Seaton i s per- s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r payment of t h e commission a s determined by the t r i a l court. The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed. / / Chief J u s t i c e

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.