DELAURENTIS v DR VAINIO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13168 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A F OTN 1976 BETTY and LOUIS DeLAURENTIS, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , DR. L.E. V A I N I O ; HELEN MARIE V A N I O , and GLENN PRYOR, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Arnold O l s e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For A p p e l l a n t s : McCaffery and P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , Montana W. Il. Murray, Jr. a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana F o r Respondents: Maurice M a f f e i a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana Submitted: A Decided h! M . March 2 , 1976 3 ? ~ r .J u s t i c e Gene 3 . 3aly .lelivereJ rhe J p i n i o n 3i- rile L o u r t . T h i s i s a n appeal from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , 5ilver 3ow County, d i s s o l v i n g a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and hdlding defendants not i n v i o l a t i o n of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant ~ r o h i b i t i n gt r a i l e r s o r mobile homes b e i n g used a s permanent residences on t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n . On June 5 , 1975, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n t h e d i s c r i c t c o u r t s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t d e f e n d a n t s from The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t v ~ o l a t i n ga r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t . { ) L a i n t i f f s B e t t y and L o u i s D e l a u r e n t i s , husband and w i f e , were t h e owners o f Lot No. 'vlontana. 6 , McNeece A d d i t i o n t o t h e c i t y o f B u t t e , That d e f e n d a n t s L. E . V a i n i o and Helen V a i n i o were t h e Jwrlers of Lot No. 5 , McNeece A d d i t i o n . i t was a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t 3 ~ e n nP r y o r made a commitment t o p u r c h a s e Lot No. 5 from def e n d a n t s V a i n i o and i n t e n d e d t o i n s t a l l a " ~ a r r i n g t o n " d o u b l e wide t r a i l e r upon a permanent f o u n d a t i o n on Lot No. 5 . The c o m p l a i n t f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e g r a n t deeds t o b o t h l o t s c o n t a i n e d a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant t h a t p r o v i d e d : "NO t r a i l e r s o r mobile homes s h a l l b e used a s a permanent r e s i d e n c e on s a i d p r e m i s e s . I I Upon an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e v i o l a t i o n o f t h e covenant would c a u s e g r e a t and i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f s , t h e d i s t r i c t L o u r t i s s u e d a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and an o r d e r t o show c a u s e o r d e r i n g d e f e n d a n t s t o a p p e a r f o r h e a r i n g on June 1 6 , 1975, and t o c e a s e and d e s i s t from i n s t a l l i n g t h e d o u b l e wide t r a i l e r on t o c No. 5 i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t . held on June 1 6 , 1975, on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e . Hearing was Thereafter, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s and d i s s o l v e d the temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . The c o u r t i n i t s judgment and srder said: * t h e B a r r i n g t o n Home b e i n g purchased by t h e Defendant Glenn P r y o r , and t o b e e r e c t e d upon t h e Lot owned by t h e Defendants [ V a i n i o ] i s n o t a t r a i l e r I I9c ; I ; o r mobile, b u t i s a modular home o r house and t h e r e f o r e i s n o ltI i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenant * * *. P l a i n t i f f s appeal from t h e j udgmen t . Numerous i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review by t h i s Court, b u t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s whether t h e s t r u c t u r e intended t o be placed on Lot No. 5 i s a t r a i l e r o r mobile home. Was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , which was rendered without f i n d i n g s .of f a c t o r conclusions of law? The s t r u c t u r e i n q u e s t i o n i s known a s a Barrington double wide "mobile home". I t c o n s i s t s of two u n i t s , each measuring 1 2 ' wide by 64' long, and when joined 64' long. form a home 24' wide by I t has a s h i n g l e d r o o f , house-type s i d i n g , and i s a frame c o n s t r u c t i o n . Each u n i t was r e c e i v e d from t h e manufacturer w i t h wheels and a x l e s and was s o l d t o Pryor w i t h t h e wheels and a x l e s i n t a c t . The s t r u c t u r e was manufactured i n Idaho and was c e r t i f i e d by t h e Recreation and Mobile Home Department of t h a t state. The s t r u c t u r e was purchased from Great Western T r a i l e r S a l e s i n B u t t e , Montana, and i s t o be placed on a permanent conc r e t e foundation. Defendants c l a i m and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found, t h a t t h e s t r u c t u r e i s a modular t y p e home. Defendants g i v e us i n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of t h e word "modular", l a r e s t Merriam-ltrebster d i c t i o n a r y : "adj. taken from t h e r e l a t i n g t o , o r based JL Jimensions f o r f l e x i b i l i t y and v a r i e t y i n u s e . If Defendants a l l e g e t h e r e a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n c e s between a modular home and a mobile home ; (1) A modular home can be c o n s t r u c t e d i n d u p l i c a t e c e s i l i o ~J~ t h e s i t e by a c o n t r a c t o r . n A mobile home c a n n o t b e l u p l i c a t e d b y a c o n t r a c t o r b e c a u s e "it i s made o f p i e c e s of m e t a l , i d i n g and t h e r o o f i s one p i e c e of s t e e l . " (2) Plodular homes have e a v e s t w e l v e t o t w e n t y - f o u r i n c h e s wide which can be r e t r a c t e d d u r i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Mobile homes i o n o t have e a v e s b e c a u s e mobile homes a r e c o n s t r u c t e d s t r i c t l y o f nletal and t h e e a v e s c a n n o t b e r e t r a c t e d o r f o l d e d d u r i n g t r a n s ?oxtation. (3) The purpose o f wheels and a x l e s on a modular u n i t i s CU : ~ i u v i d ean i n e x p e n s i v e means o f t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e u n i t from :he f a c t o r y t o t h e d e a l e r ' s l o t and t h e n t o t h e b u i l d i n g s i t e . !h purpose of wheels and a x l e s on a mobile home i s t o p r o v i d e 'e a c h a s s i s f o r movement upon a highway. The s t r u c t u r e i n q u e s t i o n h e r e may v e r y w e l l b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d ds ,nodular u n d e r t h e l i m i t e d d e f i n i t i o n p r o v i d e d by d e f e n d a n t s . !hd s t r u c t u r e a l s o meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a mobile home u n d e r "lorltana s t a t u t o r y law. The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e h a s g i v e n t h e d o n s t r u c t i o n and Maintenance D i v i s i o n o f t h e Montana Department .JL A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a u t h o r i t y t o a d o p t a d e f i n i t i o n o f II m o b i l e home" f o r p u r p o s e s o f a d o p t i n g and e n f o r c i n g b u i l d i n g c o d e s w i t h i n t h e state. S e c t i o n s 69-2105(14), 69-2122, R.C.M. 1947. Pursuant t o t h a t a u t h o r i t y t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n and Maintenance D i v i s i o n a d o p t e d t h i s definition: "(13) Mobile home means any d w e l l i n g u n i t l a r g e r t h a n two hundred f i f t y - s i x (256) s q u a r e f e e t i n a r e a which i s e i t h e r wholly o r i n s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t manufactured a t a n o f f - s i t e l o c a t i o n and any movable o r p o r t a b l e d w e l l i n g o v e r t h i r t y - t w o (32) f e e t i n l e n g t h and o v e r e i g h t (8) f e e t wide, c o n s t r u c t e d t o b e towed on i t s own c h a s s i s and d e s i g n e d w i t h o u t a permanent f o u n d a t i o n f o r year-round occupancy, which i n c l u d e s one (1) o r more components t h a t can b e r e t r a c t e d f o r towing purposes and s u b s e q u e n t l y expanded f o r a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y , o r o f two (2) o r more u n i t s s e p a r a t e l y towable b u t d e s i g n e d t o b e j o i n e d i n t o one ( I ) i n t e g r a l u n i t , a s w e l l a s a p o r t a b l e d w e l l i n g composed 6f a s i n g l e u n i t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . MAC 2-2.10(6)-S10220 (13). See a l s o MAC 2-2.10(6)S10180. Defendants a r g u e t h e s t a t u t e s and c a s e s on t h e s u b j e c t p r e d a t e t h e modular home concept and t h e t e r m "modular" s h o u l d b e construed. T h i s i s probably t r u e , however, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n s h o u l d come from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . There a r e many r e a s o n s f o r t h i s , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h i s record does not contain expert t e s t i m o n y o f such d e p t h o r q u a l i t y t o p e r m i t j u d i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n . J e r r y Hanson, salesman f o r Great Western T r a i l e r S a l e s , who s o l d t h e double wide t o Glenn P r y o r , does n o t g e t i n t o t h e s u b j e c t f i r m enough o r w i t h t h e k i n d of e v i d e n c e t h a t c o u l d t a k e i t o u t o f t h e Montana s t a t u t a r y d e f i n i t i o n . Defendants r a i s e t h e i s s u e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' c o m p l a i n t was not properly verified. The o b j e c t i o n p l a c e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was t h a t t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n was on i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o o k t h e motion under advisement and asked f o r b r i e f s and proceeded w i t h t h e h e a r i n g . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r r u l e d f o r d e f e n d a n t s on t h e m e r i t s and d i s s o l v e d t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n . T h i s had t h e l e g a l e f f e c t of a d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t s f motion t o d i s m i s s p l a i n t i f f s f complaint. T h i s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t s f motion i s a n a p p e a l a b l e o r d e r and cannot b e reviewed on a p p e a l from t h e judgment on t h e merits. L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank v. Gross, 89 Mont. 472, 476, 300 P. 277. I n any e v e n t , t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t of s e c t i o n 93-4205, R.C.M. 1947, i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t o be f o r t h e purpose o f i n s u r i n g good f a i t h and t r u t h f u l n e s s on t h e p a r t o f t h e com- plainant. B u t t e & Boston C o n s o l i d a t e d Mining Co. v. Montana Ore ::he complainant t e s t i f i e d under d a t h on t h e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d iri t h e c o m p l a i n t and a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t h e i s s u e would become W Find i n s u f f i c i e n t 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 t h e e c r ~ a ! . ~ c i u r t . The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n ::cj /? e n t e r judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s . LL& Justice M Justices - 4- V ~ d n .Bernard Thomas, ~ i i t r i c t .Tudgc, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n .

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.