ALLMAN v STUART
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
I N T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA H No. 12074 GLENN H. ALLMAN, A d m i n i s t r a t o r of the Estate o f Pvan B . APErnan, Deceased J. M. STUART, the CPTY OF G A G W LSO and t h e COUNTY OF VALLEY, D e f e n d a n t s and Cross P l a i n t i f f s . O R D E R PER CURPAM: The o p i n i o n of t h i s C o u r t d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1972 i s o r d e r e d amended as f o l 1 s w s : Another p a r a g r a p h s h a l l b e added on page 12, a t t h e end o f t h e p r e s e n t o p i n i o n and r e a d i n g : " P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t to have his costs on e h i s a p p e a l , t o b e t a x e d by t h e d i s t r i c t court." The p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s d e n i e d , DATED t h i s % s tday of F e b r u a r y , 3.972. No. 12074 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1971 G E N H. ALLMAN, A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e LN E s t a t e of IVAN B. ALLMAN, Deceased, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, J. M. STUART, t h e CITY O GTASGOW, F and t h e COUNTY O VALLEY, F Defendants and C r o s s - P l a i n t i f f s . Appeal from: District Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Leo J. K o t t a s , Sr. argued, Helena, Montana. For Defendants : Robert Hurly argued, Glasgow, Montana. Submitted: December 2, 1971 Decided : JAR Filed : 3t I 0 IR P N 9 1 0 g#g M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. I n a s u i t between p l a i n t i f f who owns two l o t s and def e n d a n t who owns a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s i t u a t e t h e r e o n , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of V a l l e y County e n t e r e d judgment r e q u i r i n g s a l e o f t h e l o t s and b u i l d i n g a s a n e n t i t y , w i t h apportionment o f t h e s a l e proceeds between t h e p a r t i e s . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h i s judg- ment and d e n i a l o f h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l . The s a l i e n t f a c t s h e r e a r e unique. The two l o t s i n q u e s t i o n a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e C i t y o f Glasgow, Montana. An o f f i c e b u i l d i n g had been c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e l o t s by persons o t h e r t h a n t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t case. F i n a n c i a l problems ensued c u l - m i n a t i n g i n a mortgage f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court i n Glasgow by p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t , who was t h e owner and h o l d e r of two $10,000 promissory n o t e s and mortgages. S e v e r a l l i e n h o l d e r s , i n c l u d i n g d e f e n d a n t h e r e , were named a s p a r t i e s d e f e n d a n t i n t h e f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n . On J u n e 1 9 , 1961, t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d i t s foreclosure decree requiring a separate s a l e a t public auction of t h e l o t s on t h e one hand and a s e p a r a t e s a l e of t h e b u i l d i n g on t h e o t h e r hand. Presumably t h i s was done t o e s t a b l i s h t h e proper l i e n r i g h t s and p r i o r i t i e s among t h e v a r i o u s l i e n h o l d e r s , a s t o t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y . Pursuant t o t h i s foreclosure d e c r e e , t h e s a l e was h e l d by t h e United S t a t e s Marshal on October 1 0 , 1961, i n Glasgow. The o f f i c e b u i l d i n g was o f f e r e d f o r s a l e f i r s t . Plain- t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t , who was t h e mortgage h o l d e r , and d e f e n d a n t , who h e l d a mechanic's l i e n f o r e l e c t r i c a l equipment i n s t a l l e d i n t h e b u i l d i n g , each b i d on t h e b u i l d i n g . Defendant e v e n t u a l l y was t h e s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r a t a p r i c e o f $14,000. The two l o t s were t h e n o f f e r e d f o r s a l e and purchased by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent f o r a p r i c e o f $20,000. Defendant t e s t i - f i e d t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o b i d on t h e l o t s , b u t d i d n o t do s o because t h e opening b i d was t o o h i g h . Both s a l e s were s u b s e q u e n t l y confirmed by t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court and s e p a r a t e c e r t i f i c a t e s of s a l e were i s s u e d t o t h e respective purchasers. No a p p e a l has e v e r been t a k e n by anyone i n t h e foreclosure proceedings. Following t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e , n e g o t i a t i o n s were had between t h e r e s p e c t i v e owners of t h e l o t s on t h e one hand, and o f t h e b u i l d i n g on t h e o t h e r . Defendant's testimony summarizes'the situation: And d u r i n g t h e f i r s t y e a r o r two a f t e r t h i s M a r s h a l l ( s i c ) s a l e was made you [ d e f e n d a n t ] and myself [ d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y ] and M r . K o t t a s [ p l a i n t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y ] and M r . Allman [ p l a i n t i f f ] have n e g o t i a t e d t o g e t h e r may times t r y i n g t o work o u t a s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem of d i v i d e d ownership h a v e n ' t a we? (Bracketed m t e r i a 1 s u p p l i e d ) "Q. "A. That i s c o r r e c t . I ? During t h i s p e r i o d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g d i f f e r e d m a t e r i a l l y from i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l . The f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t from d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony p o r t r a y s t h i s s i t u a t i o n : "Q. And d u r i n g t h a t f i r s t p e r i o d a l s o i s n ' t i t t r u e t h a t your b u i l d i n g was i n n o t t o o good s h a p e and i t w o u l d n ' t have been t o o h a r d t o move? "A. The w a l l s were cracked and i t was o n l y a b o u t a t h i r d r e n t e d and t h e p a i n t and e v e r y t h i n g from s e t t l e ment and s t u f f . . t h e w a l l s were c r a c k e d and i t c o u l d have been moved w i t h o u t doing t o o much damage o u t s i d e of maybe l o s i n g t h e masonry on t h e o u t s i d e of i t which a t t h e time c o s t around $3,100.00 something l i k e t h a t , t o r e p l a c e t h e masonry. . And a c t u a l l y o v e r t h e y e a r s s i n c e you bought t h e b u i l d i n g you've p u t i n approxima t e l y $12,000.00 worth of improvements have you n o t ? "Q. "A. Yes. The b u i l d i n g i s r e a l good shape and f u l l y rented a t the present. "Q. And t h e s e improvements i n t h e s e c a s e s were r e q u i r e d by your r e n t e r s i n o r d e r t o r e n t s p a c e t o them? "A. Well i t c o u l d n ' t be r e n t e d without: doing i t , no. "Q. And i s n ' t i t a l s o t r u e t h a t a b o u t $1,000.00 o f t h o s e improvements have been t o g r a d e and g r a v e l t h e land around t h e b u i l d i n g ? .. "A. Yes t h e w a t e r . i t s t o o d around t h e r e l i k e a l a k e and yo!^. . . b e s i d e s n o t b e i n g a b l e t o park t h e seepage u n d e r n e a t h was what was making i t s e t t l e and cracked a l l t h e walls. Is i t p r a c t i c a l t o move t h e b u i l d i n g a t t h e p r e s e n t "Q. time? "A. Well i t i s n ' t p r a c t i c a l . It would, i t c o u l d b e moved b u t i t s c o s t s would b e p r e t t y p r o h i b i t i v e . It would undo a l l t h e remodeling and i t would b e a r e a l expensive p r o p o s i t i o n . And t h i s has been a t t a c h e d t o t h e ground w i t h a permanent c o n c r e t e f o u n d a t i o n , h a s i t n o t ? "Q. A . That i s c o r r e c t . And t h e r e a r e w a t e r and sewer and gas l i n e s t h a t go underground t o t h e b u i l d i n g ? "Q. A . Uh huh. And i t has s i d e w a l k s and s t e p s t h a t a r e a t t a c h e d t o t h e groufid? "Q. "A. I p u t i n new s i d e w a l k s on t h e south s i d e towards t h e Elks t h i s summer. There was running w a t e r s e t t l e d way down and was running w a t e r under t h e f o o t i n g s o - - Approximately how much money do you have i n v e s t e d i n t h e building a t t h e present time? "Q. "A. Around $22,000.00. " The n e g o t i a t i o n s between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t c o n c e r n i n g t h e b u i l d i n g problem c o n t i n u e d through a t l e a s t 1965, a c c o r d i n g t o defendant. A s e a r l y a s 1963 d e f e n d a n t was n o t i f i e d by p l a i n t i f f , i n w r i t i n g , t o move t h e b u i l d i n g o f f t h e l o t s ; d e f e n d a n t was n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g a g a i n i n 1964. made i n 1965. O r a l n o t i f i c a t i o n was a l s o p l a i n t i f f ' s testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h i s n o t i c e i s summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t : Do you r e c a l l having a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h M r . S t u a r t a t h i s home, you and I , a f t e r t a l k i n g t o M r . Hurly [ d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y ] , and M r . Hurly t o l d us t h a t we c o u l d go and t a l k t o M r . S t u a r t ? Do you r e c a l l t h e y e a r t h a t was? (Bracketed m a t e r i a l added) Q . "A. I t h i n k i t would have been i n 65. 'p. And d i d we c o n t a c t M r . S t u a r t a t t h a t t i m e ? "A. Yes. "Q. And where d i d we c o n t a c t him? "A. A t h i s house. "Q. Who was p r e s e n t ? A . You and M r . S t u a r t and myself. Q . And what.. a t t h a t time? . Did you t a l k t o him a b o u t a n y t h i n g . "A. Yes Q . What was i t ? "A. About removing t h e b u i l d i n g . Q And what, what was t h e g i s t o f t h e c o n v e r s a t i o n t h a t you had i n m p r e s e n c e t h e r e w i t h M r . S t u a r t ? y "A. Well h e was g o i n g t o g e t around t o i t and we t a l k e d a b o u t i f we s h o u l d n ' t be g e t t i n g some r e n t o f f f o r t h e t i m e t h a t h e had used i t , and h e a g r e e d t h a t we should and I t h i n k , I t h i n k he asked how much we wanted and I t o l d him t o submit a f i g u r e and 1 ' d t a k e i t up w i t h t h e h e i r s and ... "Q. Did you r e c e i v e such a f i g u r e from him? llA. No."' S t a t e and l o c a l t a x e s were s e p a r a t e l y b i l l e d t o t h e owner o f t h e l o t s and t o t h e owner o f t h e b u i l d i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o l l o w i n g t h e r e c o r d i n g of t h e f o r e c l o s u r e d e c r e e . Defendant h a s p a i d n o t h i n g t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e u s e of t h e land on which t h e b u i l d i n g i s s i t u a t e d , n o r has he made a n a c c o u n t i n g of income from t h e b u i l d i n g . O J a n u a r y 11, 1966, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t s u i t n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f V a l l e y County s e e k i n g a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o remove h i s b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s two l o t s , a n a c c o u n t i n g of r e n t s and p r o f i t s from t h e b u i l d i n g , damages, and a t t o r n e y f e e s . Defendant answered and f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m , m i s t a k e n l y d e s i g n a t e d a c r o s s complaint . H i s answer a d m i t t e d t h e purchase of t h e t h e l a n d by p l a i n t i f f and t h e purchase of t h e b u i l d i n g l o c a t e d t h e r e o n by h i m s e l f ; h i s c o l l e c t i o n of a l l r e n t a l s f o r s p a c e i n t h e b u i l d i n g ; g e n e r a l l y denied a l l e l s e i n c l u d i n g any r i g h t i n p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f ; and s e t f o r t h two a f f i r m a t i v e defenses: (1) The r e n t a l s c o l l e c t e d a r e f o r s p a c e i n t h e b u i l d i n g and a r e no concern of p l a i n t i f f ; (2) The e n t i r e s i t u a t i o n was c r e a t e d by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent i n c a u s i n g t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g t o be s o l d s e p a r a t e l y i n h i s f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n . On September 11, 1967, Judge Loucks s u s t a i n e d p l a i n t i f f ' s motion t o d i s m i s s d e f e n d a n t ' s answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m ( e r r o n e o u s l y designated a cross claim). Subsequently Judge Loucks d i e d and Judge S o r t e , h i s s u c c e s s o r , assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . Plaintiff filed a n amended complaint naming t h e c i t y of Glasgow and V a l l e y County a s a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s d e f e n d a n t , s o t h a t t a x l i a b i l i t y on t h e l o t s c o u l d be determined. Defendant S t u a r t f i l e d an answer and c o u n t e r - c l a i m t o t h e amended complaint s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o h i s o r i g i n a l pleading. T r i a l was h e l d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . O March 11, 1971, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t , n c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment. I t s s u b s t a n c e was: "The only e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y i s t o s e l l t h e l o t and b u i l d i n g t o g e t h e r and t h e r e a f t e r a p p o r t i o n t h e proceeds among t h e parties". Judgment was e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y . Following t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t I s d e n i a l of p l a i n t i f f ' s motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, and judgment o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f a new t r i a l , p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e f i n a l judgment and d e n i a l o f h i s motion f o r new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f l i s t s s i x i s s u e s f o r review upon a p p e a l . W e summarize t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s f a s h i o n : 1. Is p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g removal o f t h e b u i l d i n g from h i s l o t s ? 2. Is d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e land and b u i l d i n g be s o l d t o g e t h e r and t h e proceeds a p p o r t i o n e d among the parties? 3. Is p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o a n a c c o u n t i n g o r r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l f o r t h e u s e of h i s l a n d ? The f i r s t i s s u e f o r review r e q u i r e s n o extended d i s c u s sion. P l a i n t i f f i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner o f t h e two l o t s by v i r t u e o f h i s purchase o f t h e land a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e . Defendant a c q u i r e d no i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d by v i r t u e o f h i s purchase o f t h e b u i l d i n g t h e r e o n , under t h e s e p a r a t e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e of t h e building. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e he knew h e was buying j u s t t h e b u i l d i n g ; t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent bought t h e l a n d ; and t h a t w a t e r , sewer, and e l e c t r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s were i n p l a c e . Defendant a d m i t t e d n e g o t i a t i o n s were had f o l l o w i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e purchases a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s i n a n a t t e m p t t o work o u t a s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem of d i v i d e d ownership. The e v i d e n c e i s e q u a l l y c l e a r t h a t d e s p i t e t h e i r f a i l u r e t o resolve t h i s question, defendant went ahead and made e x t e n s i v e improvements t o t h e b u i l d i n g to t h e t u n e of some $12,000, which rendered i t i m p r a c t i c a l t o remove t h e b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s land. There i s no e v i d e n c e p l a i n t i f f m i s l e d d e f e n d a n t i n t o t a k i n g t h i s c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o r had a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h i t ; on t h e c o n t r a r y , a l l t h e evidence i n d i c a t e s r e p e a t e d demands by p l a i n t i f f t h a t d e f e n d a n t remove t h e b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s lots. It i s a d m i t t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s p a i d n o t h i n g t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e use o f h i s l a n d occupied by defendant's building f o r s e v e r a l years following t h e foreclosure sales. P l a i n t i f f h a s r e p e a t e d l y demanded t h a t d e f e n d a n t remove t h e b u i l d i n g ; d e f e n d a n t h a s n e g l e c t e d t o do s o w i t h o u t any r i g h t whatever t o occupy p l a i n t i f f ' s land; a n d , p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o remove t h e b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s land w i t h i n such r e a s o n a b l e time and under s u c h r e a s o n a b l e procedures a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may r e q u i r e . D i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e second i s s u e f o r r e v i e w , the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s a r e equally c l e a r . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t cannot o r d e r t h a t t h e l o t s and b u i l d i n g be s o l d a s a n i n d i v i s i b l e e n t i t y w i t h t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e a p p o r t i o n e d between t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e a b s e n c e of a primary r i g h t i n d e f e n d a n t t o such relief. Here, t h e r e i s no s u c h primary r i g h t i n d e f e n d a n t e i t h e r under Montana's p a r t i t i o n s t a t u t e s o r by a p p l i c a t i o n of any recognized equity principle. Defendant has no r i g h t t o such r e l i e f under our p a r t i t i o n s t a t u t e s a s t h e y r e q u i r e a n i n d i v i d e d co-ownership of t h e p r o p e r t y t o be p a r t i t i o n e d . S e c t i o n 93-6301, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n material part: 11 When s e v e r a l c o t e n a n t s hold and a r e i n possession of r e a l p r o p e r t y a s j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common a n a c t i o n may be brought by one o r more and of such persons f o r a p a r t i t i o n t h e r e o f f o r a s a l e of such p r o p e r t y , o r a p a r t t h e r e o f , i f i t appears t h a t a p a r t i t i o n cannot be made w i t h o u t a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e owners. 11 *** *** S e c t i o n 93-6301.1, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e same co- tenancy i n p a r t i t i o n a c t i o n s of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y . Here, t h e r e i s no cotenancy of a n undivided i n t e r e s t a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , t e n a n t s is i n common, o r otherwise; on t h e c o n t r a r y , p l a i n t i f f / t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e r e a l e s t a t e , i . e . t h e l a n d , w h i l e defendant i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , i . e . the building. Accordingly, defendant has no s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g a p a r t i t i o n a c t i o n on t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y , I.@. t h e land and t h e b u i l d i n g , a s he i s n o t a c o t e n a n t t h e r e i n . In e f f e c t , t h e fore- c l o s u r e d e c r e e and s e p a r a t e s a l e s p a r t i t i o n e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n t o twoseparate p a r t s , each owned e x c l u s i v e l y by t h e r e s p e c t i v e parties t o this action. Nor has defendant, under any recognized e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e , e s t a b l i s h e d any primary r i g h t i n himself t o have t h e b u i l d i n g and land merged f o r s a l e , s o l d a s an e n t i t y , and t h e s a l e proceeds apportioned between t h e r e s p e c t i v e owners. Both p a r t i e s purchased t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o p e r t i e s w i t h t h e i r eyes open; under no m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , mistake, o r misunders tanding; and, w i t h f u l l knowledge of t h e problems i n h e r e n t i n d i v i d e d ownership. Defendant u n i l a t e r a l l y proceeded t o expend a s u b s t a n t i a l sum of money i n improvements on h i s b u i l d i n g , rendering i t i m p r a c t i c a l t o remove i t from p l a i n t i f f ' s land. A l l t h e s e improve- ments were made without any agreement o r payment t o p l a i n t i f f of a r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l f o r t h e use of h i s l a n d , and a t l e a s t some of t h e improvements were made i n t h e f a c e of repeated demands by p l a i n t i f f t h a t defendant remove h i s b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s land. Defendant i s nothing more than a naked t r e s p a s s e r on p l a i n t i f f ' s land who proceeded a t h i s p e r i l w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l improvements t o h i s b u i l d i n g i n t h e hope t h a t some agreement could be reached whereby he could purchase t h e l a n d , p l a i n t i f f would purchase h i s b u i l d i n g , o r a r e n t a l agreement o r some o t h e r arrangement could be consummated s o t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g would n o t have t o be removed from Lhe land. No agreement has been reached and now defendant seeks t o compel p l a i n t i f f t o s e l l h i s land a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n . Defendant has no primary r i g h t t o compel p l a i n t i f f t o do t h i s . The land belongs t o p l a i n t i f f who has t h e r i g h t t o s e l l i t on such terms and c o n d i t i o n s a s he s e e s f i t ; o r p l a i n t i f f can r e f u s e t o s e l l i t a t a l l . These r i g h t s a r e unquesttoned i n c i d e n t s of l e g a l ownership of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . lai in tiff's motives o r reasons f o r s a l e o r r e f u s a l t o s e l l , o r h i s terms and c o n d i t i o n s of s a l e , a r e immaterial. Unquestionably defendant now f i n d s himself i n a d i f f i c u l t p o s i t i o n w i t h a l i k e l i h o o d of s u s t a i n i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l l o s s , b u t i t i s a s i t u a t i o n of h i s own making f o r which p l a i n t i f f i s i n no m y c h a r g e a b l e nor r e s p o n s i b l e . Although defendant a r g u e s t h a t t h i s s i t u a t i o n was c r e a t e d by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent i n b r i n g i n g about t h e divided ownership a s a r e s u l t of h i s f o r e c l o s u r e s u i t , t h e r e i s n e i t h e r evidence t h a t t h e s e p a r a t e s a l e s under t h e f o r e c l o s u r e d e c r e e were h i s doing, nor t h a t defendant misunderstood o r was misled i n any way about what he was purchasing o r of h i s r i g h t s thereunder. Under such circumstances , what e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e compels t h e owner o f land t o s e l l i t a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n a g a i n s t h i s wishes t o prevent a l o s s t o a c o n t i n u i n g t r e s p a s s e r w i t h The q u e s t i o n provides i t s own answer and demonstrates notice? t h e f a l l a c y of d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n on t h i s i s s u e . Proceeding t o t h e f i n a l i s s u e , we hold t h a t a l t h o u g h p l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n accounting of d e f e n d a n t ' s r e n t a l s on h i s o f f i c e b u i l d i n g , p l a i n t i f f i s n e v e r t h e l e s s e n t i t l e d t o a r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l f o r t h e use of h i s land occupied by d e f e n d a n t ' s building. P l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n accounting simply because defendant i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner and l a n d l o r d of t h e b u i l d i n g and p l a i n t i f f has no i n t e r e s t i n t h e b u i l d i n g o r r e n t a l s d e r i v e d from i t s t e n a n t s . O t h e o t h e r hand, p l a i n t i f f n a s s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e land on which t h e b u i l d i n g i s s i t u a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e reasonable r e n t a l v a l u e of h i s land f o r t h e period of time i t was and i s occupied by d e f e n d a n t ' s building. The record of t h e t r i a l i s devoid of any s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence concerning t h e reasonable r e n t a l v a l u e of p l a i n t i f f ' s land. The only evidence o f f e r e d on t h i s p o i n t i s t h e b a l d a s s e r t i o n by p l a i n t i f f t h a t "we f i g u r e d i t could e a s i l y b r i n g i n $75.00 t o $80.00 a month'' j u s t f o r parking. Plaintiff gave no b a s i s f o r t h i s opinion and admitted t h a t he d i d n o t look i n t o t h e a c t u a l expense of c r e a t i n g a parking l o t on h i s land. P l a i n t i f f a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e r e were two vacant l o t s immediately west o f h i s land which were used a s parking space f o r p a t r o n s of t h e Elks Club and d e f e n d a n t ' s b u i l d i n g and t h a t he d i d n o t know of anyone who was paying any s o r t of r e n t f o r t h i s parking. Accordingly, t h i s cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o v a c a t e t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of law, and judgment h e r e t o f o r e e n t e r e d ; t o hold a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g t o determine t h e r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e t o be paid p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e use of h i s land by defendant; and, f o r t h e e n t r y of a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s o t t a c t , conclusions of law, and f i n a l judgment i n conformity w i t h t h i s opinion. Associate J u s t i c e ef 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.
