DOWNS v SMYK

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14772 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A F F OTN 1979 ROBERT F. DOWNS, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs- BERNARD SMYK, a / k / a and LOIS SMYK, BERNARD L. SMYK, D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t - r i c t , H o n o r a b l e C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellant: B e r n a r d a n d L o i s Smyk, B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent : C a l v i n A. C a l t o n , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : Decided : Filed : October 1 8 , 1 9 7 9 GEC 2 1 1 m Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an action to quiet title to certain real property located in Yellowstone County in the District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, the Honorable Charles Luedke presiding. Defendant-appellant, Bernard L. Smyk, leased approximately seven and one-half acres of certain commercially desirable land in Billings, Montana, in 1976. Appellant was given the option to purchase such land by a letter received from his lessor on March 2, 1976. According to the terms of the letter, the option to purchase called for a total purchase price of $300,000 and a down payment of $60,000 and was to be exercised by appellant within 120 days. Unable to make the down payment, appellant contacted plaintiff-respondent, Robert F. Downs, for financial assistance. Respondent agreed to furnish appellant with the $60,000 down payment, and an agreement was executed to that effect in June 1976. That agreement recited that "Robert F. Downs will advance the down payment of $60,000.00 and in consideration therefor will acquire a 50% interest in the property." The agreement also stated: "When the proposed contract for deed will permit, the parties hereto agree to execute whatever may be required to establish their respective interests in the real estate of record with the Clerk and Recorder, Yellowstone County, Montana." Under the agreement, respondent controlled all contractual arrangements concerning the property until appellant contributed, by means of monthly installments, an amount equal to that of the down payment. At that time, both appellant and respondent would share profits and liabilities equally. ~ a v i n g b t a i n e d t h e down payment, a p p e l l a n t e n t e r e d o i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r deed t o p u r c h a s e t h e p r o p e r t y i n J u l y 1976. ~ p p e l l a n tt h e r e a f t e r o c c u p i e d t h e p r o p e r t y a s h i s p l a c e of b u s i n e s s u n t i l a d i s p u t e a r o s e between t h e p a r t i e s o v e r t h e i m p o r t of t h e agreement i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h a poss i b l e sale of t h e land. The d i s p u t e concerned whether r e s p o n d e n t had m e r e l y l o a n e d a p p e l l a n t t h e money f o r t h e p u r c h a s e of t h e l a n d o r had e n t e r e d i n t o a n agreement whereby he was conveyed a n u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e land. A s a r e s u l t of t h e d i s p u t e , r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n D i s t r i c t C o u r t on F e b r u a r y 27, 1978, s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c performance of t h e agreement, a p a r t i t i o n i n g o f t h e prope r t y , and a n a c c o u n t i n g and payment o f r e n t a l s . An amended c o m p l a i n t w a s f i l e d i n August 1978, a s k i n g t h e c o u r t t o q u i e t t i t l e t o a n u n d i v i d e d one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e prop- e r t y , p a r t i t i o n t h e p r o p e r t y , o r d e r a n a c c o u n t i n g , and i s s u e d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a s t o t h e r i g h t o f c o n t r o l f o r t h e s a l e of t h e property. On August 2 3 , 1978, r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a motion f o r summary judgment p u r s u a n t t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P. Both p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d b r i e f s on t h e motion a n d , on F e b r u a r y 1 3 , 1979, t h e c o u r t g r a n t e d summary judgment a s t o r e s p o n d e n t ' s c l a i m t o q u i e t t i t l e and h i s r e q u e s t f o r an a c c o u n t i n g and payment o f income due. Judgment was t h e n e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t on F e b r u a r y 23, 1979, and f i n a l judgment was e n t e r e d on October 1, 1979. W c o n s i d e r t h e f o l l o w i n g t h r e e i s s u e s on a p p e a l : e (1) 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 sum- mary judgment b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t make f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. ( 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 g r a n t i n g summary judgment b e c a u s e t h e r e w e r e g e n u i n e i s s u e s of material f a c t before the court. ( 3 ) whether a p p e l l a n t may i n t r o d u c e , and whether t h i s C o u r t may p r o p e r l y r e v i e w , e v i d e n c e which i s e x t r a n e o u s t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . A s h i s f i r s t i s s u e , a p p e l l a n t c o n t e n d s i t was e r r o r f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o g r a n t summary judgment and n o t e n t e r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law. A p p e l l a n t main- t a i n s t h a t such f i n d i n g s w e r e n e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e t h e y i n f o r m t h e p a r t i e s and a r e v i e w i n g c o u r t of t h e b a s i s f o r t h e decision. Because no f i n d i n g s were i n c l u d e d i n t h e i n s t a n t case, a p p e l l a n t contends t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d . W e disagree. Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., provides t h a t f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o be e n t e r e d upon motions f i l e d p u r s u a n t t o Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., f o r summary judgment, e x c e p t when t h e r e i s a f a i l u r e by a p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r comply w i t h t h e r u l e s of t h e c o u r t under Rule 4 1 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. p a r t t h a t "findings . . . are Rule 52 ( a ) s t a t e s i n p e r t i n e n t u n n e c e s s a r y on d e c i s i o n s of m o t i o n s under R u l e s 1 2 o r 56 o r any o t h e r motion e x c e p t a s p r o v i d e d i n Rule 4 1 ( b ) . " A p p e l l a n t a t t e m p t s t o r e l y upon t h e c a s e of Upper M i s s o u r i G & T E l e c . Coop. v . McCone E l e c . Co-op Mont. ( 1 9 7 1 ) , 157 239, 484 P.2d 741, f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t s u c h findings a r e necessary. Upper M i s s o u r i was a c a s e i n which a D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f i t s own v o l i t i o n made f i n d i n g s o f f a c t i n g r a n t i n g a motion f o r summary judgment. The judgment was r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e f i n d i n g s were u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i dence. I n t h a t opinion, t h i s Court noted t h a t f i n d i n g s w e r e n o t r e q u i r e d i n d e c i s i o n s on motions f o r summary judgment, b u t t h a t , i f f i n d i n g s were e n t e r e d and w e r e u n s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e , t h e judgment would be r e v e r s e d : "While, under Rule 5 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P., findings o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w are u n n e c e s s a r y i n d e c i s i o n s on summary judgment, w e f i n d h e r e t h a t an a n a l y s i s of t h e findings determines t h e c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e summary judgment i n v o l v e d . A s w e remarked b e f o r e , o u r a n a l y s i s w i l l o f t e n Upper show no e v i d e n c e - - t h a t i s t h e n e g a t i v e . " M i s s o u r i , 157 Mont. a t 244, 484 P.2d a t 744. The motion f o r summary judgment i n t h i s c a s e d o e s n o t r e l a t e t o t h e f a i l u r e o f p l a i n t i f f t o p r o s e c u t e o r comply w i t h t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . Therefore, t h e D i s - t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment b e c a u s e i t d i d n o t e n t e r f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w . Appellant n e x t argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment b e c a u s e a n i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t w a s before t h e court. By s t a t u t e i t i s c l e a r t h a t summary judgment i s o n l y p r o p e r l y g r a n t e d " i f t h e p l e a d i n g s , d e p o s i t i o n s , answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i f any, show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a matter of law." Rule 56 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. I n a motion f o r summary judgment, t h e moving p a r t y h a s t h e burden o f showing t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of f a c t i s before t h e t r i a l court. Where t h e r e c o r d c l e a r l y shows no i s s u e , t h e burden s h i f t s , and t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y must come forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e . l a n d v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 169 Mont. 447, 450-451, Har- 548 P.2d "The C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y h e l d t h a t t h e p a r t y moving f o r summary judgment h a s t h e burden of showing t h e complete a b s e n c e o f any g e n u i n e iss u e a s t o a l l f a c t s which a r e deemed m a t e r i a l i n l i g h t of t h o s e s u b s t a n t i v e p r i n c i p l e s which e n t i t l e him t o a judgment as a m a t t e r of law "The p r i m a r y p o l i c y and g e n e r a l p u r p o s e underi s t o encourage judil y i n g Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., c i a 1 economy t h r o u g h t h e prompt e l i m i n a t i o n o f q u e s t i o n s n o t d e s e r v i n g of r e s o l u t i o n by t r i a l . [Citation omitted.] Thus w h i l e t h e i n i t i a l burden of proof must a t t a c h t o t h e movant, t h a t burden s h i f t s where t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion must come forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e r a i s i n g the issue. [Citations omitted.]" H e r e , r e s p o n d e n t f i l e d a motion f o r summary judgment and t h u s had t h e burden o f e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e a b s e n c e of any m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t . Respondent a t t e m p t e d t o c a r r y t h i s burden by a r g u i n g i n h i s b r i e f t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t t h a t t h e r e c o r d w a s c l e a r and d e v o i d of any g e n u i n e i s s u e o f material fact. A p p e l l a n t a r g u e d , however, t h a t t h e r e c o r d was ambigu- o u s and t h a t a m a t e r i a l i s s u e of f a c t was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t . T h a t i s s u e was whether r e s p o n d e n t , under t h e terms of t h e agreement between a p p e l l a n t and r e s p o n d e n t , o b t a i n e d any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y by advancing money and, i f s o , when he o b t a i n e d such i n t e r e s t . On t h e one hand, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t d i d n o t o b t a i n any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y b e c a u s e t h e money w a s advanced a s a l o a n . On t h e o t h e r hand, a p p e l l a n t a r g u e d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t , by t h e t e r m s o f t h e agreement, o b t a i n e d o n l y a f u t u r e i n t e r e s t i n t h e land. The t r i a l c o u r t was f a c e d w i t h , a s w e a r e , l o o k i n g t o t h e r e c o r d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e x i s t e n c e o f any g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . A p p e l l a n t r e l i e s h e a v i l y on t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r one o f h i s arguments. A p p e l l a n t emphasizes t h a t , a c - cording t o t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , respondent obtained h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y o n l y "when t h e proposed con- t r a c t f o r deed w i l l p e r m i t . . ." Therefore, appellant contends t h a t respondent acquired only a f u t u r e i n t e r e s t i n t h e land. According t o t h e r u l e s of c o n s t r u c t i o n , a c o n t r a c t i s t o be i n t e r p r e t e d s o a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e mutual i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s . S e c t i o n 28-3-301, MCA. Where t h e l a n g u a g e o f a c o n t r a c t i s c l e a r and e x p l i c i t and d o e s n o t i n v o l v e a n a b s u r d i t y , t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t i s governed by s u c h language. S e c t i o n 28-3-401, MCA. The whole o f t h e c o n t r a c t i s t o be t a k e n t o g e t h e r s o a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o every p a r t i f reasonably p r a c t i c a b l e , each c l a u s e helping t o i n t e r p r e t t h e other. S e c t i o n 28-3-202, MCA. " I t is well established t h a t a court, i n interp r e t i n g a w r i t t e n instrument, w i l l n o t i s o l a t e c e r t a i n phrases of t h a t instrument i n order t o garner t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s , b u t w i l l grasp t h e i n s t r u m e n t by i t s f o u r c o r n e r s and i n l i g h t o f t h e e n t i r e i n s t r u m e n t , a s c e r t a i n t h e paramount Mere i s o and g u i d i n g i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s . l a t e d t r a c t s , c l a u s e s and words w i l l n o t be a l lowed t o p r e v a i l o v e r t h e g e n e r a l l a n g u a g e u t i l i z e d i n t h e instrument." S t e e n v. Rustad ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 96, 102, 313 P.2d 1014, 1018. A p p e l l a n t ' s argument i s p r e d i c a t e d on a n i s o l a t e d p h r a s e of t h e c o n t r a c t , which i s t a k e n o u t of c o n t e x t and omits t h e remaining p a r t of t h e sentence. The s e n t e n c e i n i t s e n t i r e t y is: "When t h e proposed c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i l l p e r m i t , t h e p a r t i e s h e r e t o a g r e e t o e x e c u t e whatever may be r e q u i r e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e i n t e r e s t s i n t h e r e a l e s t a t e of r e c o r d w i t h t h e C l e r k and Recorder, Yellowstone County, Montana." Viewed i n i t s e n t i r e t y , t h e p r o v i s i o n t a k e s on new meaning. The c l a u s e , by i t s v e r y t e r m s , i n d i c a t e s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t r e c e i v e d a p r e s e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d which was t o be r e c o r d e d a t a f u t u r e d a t e . That t h i s i s c l e a r l y t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s i s f u r t h e r e v i d e n c e d by o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e agreement: " R o b e r t F. Downs w i l l advance t h e down payment o f $60,000.00 and i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . "Downs w i l l c o n t r o l any c o n t r a c t u a l a r r a n g e ments u n t i l Smyk h a s c o n t r i b u t e d , by payment o f monthly i n s t a l l m e n t s , t h e sum of $60,000.00. A t t h a t time, Downs and Smyk s h a l l e q u a l l y s h a r e a l l l i a b i l i t i e s and p r o f i t s , i f any." A p p e l l a n t a g a i n r e l i e s h e a v i l y on a n i s o l a t e d p h r a s e f o r t h e argument t h a t r e s p o n d e n t o b t a i n e d no i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d b e c a u s e t h e money advanced by r e s p o n d e n t was m e r e l y a T h a t p h r a s e i s found i n r e s p o n d e n t ' s d e p o s i t i o n i n loan. which r e s p o n d e n t s t a t e s t h a t he " l e n d [ e d ] t h e money t o him [appellant] ." I n e v a l u a t i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s argument, i t i s f i r s t i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t t h e answer was g i v e n by respond e n t o n l y a f t e r h i s c o u n s e l v o i c e d two o b j e c t i o n s as t o S e c o n d l y , i t i s a l s o i m p o r t a n t t o examine o t h e r form. p o r t i o n s of t h e deposition. There, i t i s e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t t h e answer i s t a k e n o u t o f c o n t e x t and t h a t r e s p o n d e n t n e v e r considered t h e t r a n s a c t i o n a loan: "Q. NOW, I n o t i c e i n P a r a g r a p h 3 o f t h e a g r e e ment t h a t i t s t a t e s , ' R o b e r t F. Downs w i l l advance t h e down payment of $60,000.00 and i n c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h e r e f o r w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n terest i n t h e property.' Now, when w e r e you supposed t o a c q u i r e t h e 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y ? A. W e l l , I had 50% when I g i v e t h e $60,000 down. "Q. A r e you t h e owner o f t h i s p r o p e r t y ? I ' m h a l f owner. "Q. A. A. Where d o e s M r . C a r l s o n f i t i n t o t h i s ? I ' l l c o r r e c t m statement." y I ' m h a l f buyer. W e need n o t l o o k t o t h e d e p o s i t i o n , however, t o deter- mine whether t h e money was advanced by r e s p o n d e n t f o r a down payment o r a s a l o a n . answer. The agreement i t s e l f r e v e a l s t h e The c o n t r a c t d e s c r i b e s t h e money a s a down payment, n o t as a l o a n . Nowhere i n t h e c o n t r a c t i s t h e r e made men- t i o n o f a l o a n , o r a p r o v i s i o n f o r repayment of a l o a n , o r a p r o v i s i o n r e g a r d i n g i n t e r e s t on t h e $60,000. Rather, t h e c o n t r a c t s t a t e s t h a t - c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r t h e down payment, in r e s p o n d e n t w i l l a c q u i r e a 50% i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y . F u r t h e r , t h e r e i s a p r o v i s i o n which i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s w i l l e q u a l l y s h a r e p r o f i t s and l i a b i l i t i e s when a p p e l l a n t h a s c o n t r i b u t e d a n amount e q u a l t o t h e down payWithout q u e s t i o n , t h e r e i s a c l e a r and d e f i n i t e ment. i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s t o s h a r e 50-50 i n t h e ownership, l i a b i l i t i e s , and income o f t h e p r o p e r t i e s . W e f i n d , t h e r e f o r e , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t err i n g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o r e s p o n d e n t . There was no genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e record before t h e court. I t i s c l e a r from t h e f a c e of t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t o b t a i n e d a one-half i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y upon f u r n i s h i n g t h e down payment, such i n t e r e s t t o be r e c o r d e d when t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed p e r m i t t e d . Appellant f a i l e d t o come forward w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e o f t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t . Yecny v . Day ( 1 9 7 7 ) , St.Rep. - Mont. A s t h i s Court s t a t e d i n , 571 P.2d 386, 388, 34 1323, 1325: . t h e p a r t y o p p o s i n g t h e motion must p r e s e n t f a c t s i n p r o p e r form--conclusions o f law w i l l n o t s u f f i c e ; and t h e o p p o s i n g p a r t y ' s f a c t s must be m a t e r i a l and o f a s u b s t a n t i a l n a t u r e , n o t f a n c i f u l , f r i v o l o u s , gauzy, n o r merely s u s (Citations omitted. ) picious. " The f i n a l i s s u e c o n c e r n s whether a p p e l l a n t may i n t r o d u c e , and whether t h i s C o u r t may p r o p e r l y c o n s i d e r , e v i d e n c e which i s e x t r a n e o u s t o t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l . A p p e l l a n t begs t h i s C o u r t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e summary judgment, t o examine a d e p o s i t i o n g i v e n by r e s p o n d e n t i n a d i s s o l u t i o n and p r o p e r t y s e t t l e m e n t p r o c e e d i n g p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d by t h i s C o u r t . T h a t d e p o s i t i o n , however, was n e i t h e r i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e n o r c o n s i d e r e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s matter. I t i s a w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p l e t h a t t h i s Court i s confined i n equity c a s e s t o a consideration of evidence presented i n the record. S e c t i o n 3-2-204(5), MCA, s t a t e s i n pertinent part: " I n e q u i t y cases and i n m a t t e r s and p r o c e e d i n g s o f a n e q u i t a b l e n a t u r e , t h e supreme c o u r t s h a l l r e v i e w a l l q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t a r i s i n g upon t h e evidence presented - - record i n the (Emphas i s added.) . . ." W e have p r e v i o u s l y r e f u s e d t o c o n s i d e r a t t e m p t s by l i t i g a n t s t o introduce testimony extraneous t o t h e record. I n Montgomery v . F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 4 Mont. 395, 4 1 2 , 136 P.2d 760, 768, w e s t a t e d : " R e f e r e n c e h a s been made t o c e r t a i n t e s t i m o n y g i v e n a t t h e t r i a l i n Montgomery v. G i l b e r t . S e c t i o n 9745, Revised Codes, p r o v i d e s what cons t i t u t e s t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l from a n o r d e r i n The t e s t i m o n y - -e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n i n th probate. i s - t p a r t - t h e p r e s e n t r e c o r d . Although w e n o - - of d o n o t s e e w h e r e i n i t h a s any b e a r i n g on t h e i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by r e s p o n d e n t s ' p e t i t i o n t o s e l l and a p p e l l a n t s ' o b j e c t i o n s t h e r e t o , n e v e r t h e l e s s , n o look t o i f i t - h a s , w e m x -t- - - t h a t t e s t i m o n y for t h e p u r p o s e o f s u p p l y i n g -- t p r e s e n t e d in facts no t h e record f o r review - - p r e s e n t proceeding." i n the (Citations omitted.) (Emphasis a d d e d . ) I n Farmers S t a t e Bank of Conrad v . I v e r s o n ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 162 Mont. 1 3 0 , 133-134, 509 P.2d 839, 841, w e a l s o s t a t e d : " I n a d d i t i o n w e must comment on t h e ' b a c k d o o r ' a t t e m p t by p e t i t i o n e r s and a p p e l l a n t s t o i n t r o duce extraneous evidence i n t h e s e proceedings by a t t a c h i n g Appendix ' A ' , ' B ' , and ' C ' t o t h e i r Said appendices being a f f i d a b r i e f on a p p e a l . v i t s of Ralph Bouma, t o which are a t t a c h e d p h o t o s t a t i c c o p i e s of c e r t a i n c i t a t i o n s and o r d e r s i n c a u s e s 8073 and 8221, Pondera County, r e f e r r e d t o previously. "We s t r o n g l y condemn t h i s p r a c t i c e Q c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t s and u s e t h i s o c c a s i o n to warn that this o t h e r p a r t i e s t o f u t u r e a p p e a l s --p r a c t i c e w i l l n o t- t o l e r a t e d . " - We find, therefore, that we may not consider evidence which is extraneous to the record on this appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We concur: ~AAJ p4&&@ Chief Justice Justices Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, deeming himself disqualified, did not participate in this case.

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.