TOBACCO RIVER LUMBER CO INC v

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14785 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 TOBACCO RIVER LUMBER COMPANY, INC a Montana corporation, ., Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. LOUIS A. YOPPE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert S. Keller argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana Thomas R. Bostock argued, Libby, Montana Submitted: Decided : November 1, 1979 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 C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f Tobacco R i v e r Lumber Company, I n c . , f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s Yoppe a l l e g i n g i n Count I a n a c t i o n f o r damages f o r a d e l a y i n d e e d i n g r e a l p r o p e r t y t o p l a i n t i f f , and a l l e g i n g i n Count I1 a n a c t i o n f o r damages f o r t h e c o s t of a s u r v e y w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p r o p e r t y ref e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The m a t t e r was t r i e d b e f o r e a j u r y i n December 1978 i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e N i n e t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of L i n c o l n . The j u r y awarded no damages f o r t h e d e l a y i n Count I and one-half Count 11. of t h e survey c o s t s i n P l a i n t i f f t h e r e a f t e r moved f o r a new t r i a l a s t o b o t h c o u n t s , b u t t h e c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion. Plaintiff a p p e a l s from t h e f i n a l judgment and o r d e r s d e n y i n g t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . Plaintiff-appellant, a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n p r i m a r i l y engaged i n t h e wood p r o d u c t s i n d u s t r y , n e g o t i a t e d w i t h defendants-respondents f o r t h e purchase of an i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t of l a n d o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 a c r e s s i t u a t e d n e a r Eureka, Montana. These n e g o t i a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n t h e e x e c u t i o n o f a c o n t r a c t f o r deed d a t e d J u n e 1, 1966. The p u r c h a s e p r i c e w a s p a i d on o r a b o u t J a n u a r y 31, 1972. According t o t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d , t h e Yoppes were t o p r o v i d e Tobacco R i v e r w i t h a w a r r a n t y deed conveying t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y and a p o l i c y o f t i t l e i n s u r a n c e a t t h e t i m e o f t h e l a s t payment o r w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e t h e r e a f t e r , such p e r i o d n o t t o exceed 60 days. The Yoppes p r o v i d e d Tobacco R i v e r w i t h a w a r r a n t y deed on May 1 4 , 1974, and t i t l e i n s u r a n c e on J u n e 6 , 1974. A t t h e t i m e o f t h e f i n a l payment, t h e Yoppes r e q u e s t e d t h e i r a t t o r n e y , J o s e p h F. Fennessy, J r . , of Libby, Montana, t o p r e p a r e a deed and o b t a i n t i t l e i n s u r a n c e . The l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed w a s compiled from v a r i o u s t a x n o t i c e s and d i d n o t g i v e a s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l description. survey. The t i t l e company, t h e r e f o r e , r e q u e s t e d a The Yoppes took s t e p s t o a r r a n g e f o r a s u r v e y i n A p r i l 1973 when M r s . Yoppe c o n t a c t e d a s u r v e y o r from M i s - s o u l a who a g r e e d t o do a boundary s u r v e y f o r h e r . By t h i s t i m e Tobacco R i v e r had c o n s t r u c t e d homes on t h e p r e m i s e s and d e s i r e d t o have a n i n t e r i o r s u r v e y of t h e various t r a c t s involved. Tobacco R i v e r c o n t a c t e d t h e s a m e s u r v e y o r f o r an i n t e r i o r s u r v e y , w i t h a r e q u e s t , and a n agreement, t h a t t h e s u r v e y would be completed b e f o r e J u l y 1, 1973, when t h e new Montana S u b d i v i s i o n and P l a t t i n g Act would t a k e e f f e c t . I n mid-June, however, t h e Missoula s u r v e y o r informed t h e p a r t i e s t h a t he had n o t been a b l e t o g e t t o t h e s u r v e y b e c a u s e o f t h e p r e s s o f b u s i n e s s and would n o t be a b l e t o b e f o r e J u l y 1, 1973. The p r e s i d e n t of Tobacco R i v e r t h e n o b t a i n e d t h e s e r v i c e s o f a s u r v e y o r from B i l l i n g s who proceeded w i t h d i s p a t c h t o do t h e boundary s u r v e y and t h e i n t e r i o r s u r v e y and f i n i s h e d t h e s u r v e y s i n September 1973. H e s u b m i t t e d a b i l l f o r t h e i n t e r i o r s u r v e y , which w a s p a i d by Tobacco R i v e r , and h e s u b m i t t e d a b i l l f o r t h e e x t e r i o r s u r v e y , which w a s n o t p a i d by t h e Yoppes o r anyone else. Because of t h e f a i l u r e t o pay, t h e e x t e r i o r s u r v e y was n o t f i l e d by t h e s u r v e y o r , and no deed c o u l d b e d e l i v e r e d . I n May 1974, t h e Yoppes' a t t o r n e y p r e p a r e d a deed from t a x n o t i c e s , t h e L i n c o l n County t r a c t book, and o t h e r p a p e r s , which p r o v i d e d f o r 379 a c r e s , more o r l e s s . s i b l e a s s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. his was pos- 1947, had been r e p e a l e d . The deed was r e c o r d e d on May 1 4 , 1974. A t t h e same t i m e , t h e t i t l e company i s s u e d a p o l i c y o f t i t l e i n s u r a n c e e f f e c t i v e May 1 4 , 1974, u s i n g t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n p r e p a r e d by s t h e ~ i l l i n g s u r v e y o r and c o n t a i n e d i n t h e u n f i l e d s u r v e y , r e f l e c t i n g 357.77 a c r e s . The p o l i c y o f t i t l e i n s u r a n c e w a s d e l i v e r e d t o Tobacco R i v e r on J u n e 6, 1974. There i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e boundary s u r v e y was e v e r f i l e d . Three major a r e a s o f c o n f l i c t e x i s t between t h e p a r t i e s r e g a r d i n g t h e d e t a i l s o f t h e s u r v e y and t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s under which i t was conducted. F i r s t , with respect t o the area o f l a n d t o be s u r v e y e d , a p p e l l a n t i n s i s t s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s r e q u e s t e d a s u r v e y o f t h e e n t i r e p a r c e l of l a n d . Respondents, however, c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y r e q u e s t e d a s u r v e y of o n l y a p a r t i c u l a r problem area of t h e l a n d , t h e meander l i n e of t h e Tobacco R i v e r , and t h a t a p p e l l a n t r e q u e s t e d a survey of t h e remainder. Second, w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e c i r - cumstances under which t h e s u r v e y w a s c o n d u c t e d , r e s p o n d e n t s i n s i s t t h a t t h e s u r v e y o r gave a p p e l l a n t a n e s t i m a t e r e g a r d i n g t h e c o s t s of t h e survey before contacting respondents. Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t respondents w e r e furnished an e s t i - m a t e of t h e c o s t s a f t e r t h e s u r v e y o r had c o n t a c t e d t h e respondents. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s and r e s p o n d e n t s deny t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s had knowledge o f a s u r v e y conducted by a second s u r v e y o r h i r e d by a p p e l l a n t . The estimate g i v e n by t h e o r i g i n a l s u r v e y o r w a s $2,000 f o r t h e boundary s u r v e y . The s u r v e y b i l l i n q u e s t i o n t o t a l e d $4,323.63 f o r t h e e x t e r i o r s u r v e y . Counsel f o r b o t h p a r t i e s a g r e e d t h a t t h e c l a i m f o r damages i n Count I would c o n s i s t s o l e l y of t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e f o r two and one-half years. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h i s C o u r t on a p p e a l are: 1. W a s t h e v e r d i c t o f t h e j u r y as t o Counts I and I1 s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e and t h e l a w of t h e c a s e ? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t 2. p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t a s t o Counts I and II? Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n r e f u s i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s 3. proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 and i n g i v i n g I n s t r u c t i o n No. T h e r e a r e p a g e s upon p a g e s o f c h a r g e s and c o u n t e r c h a r g e s made i n t h e b r i e f s which would compel a much l o n g e r o p i n i o n t h a n i s w a r r a n t e d by t h e l a w and f a c t s i n v o l v e d h e r e i f w e were t o d i g n i f y most o f them w i t h e x t e n d e d d i s c u s s i o n . Aside from t h e f a c t t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s a r e r e s p o n s i b l e , under t h e c o n t r a c t , t o f u r n i s h t i t l e and i n s u r a n c e which c o u l d n o t b e accomplished w i t h o u t a s u r v e y , t h e c o u r t gave t o t h e j u r y I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e l a w s which e x i s t a t t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f making o f a c o n t r a c t , and where i t i s t o b e performed, e n t e r i n t o and form p a r t of i t , a s i f t h e y w e r e e x p r e s s l y r e f e r r e d t o o r i n c o r p o r a t e d i n i t s terms." T h i s w a s f o l l o w e d by t h e c o n t r o v e r s i a l I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 4 , which i s c o n f u s i n g b u t i s t h e s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, and s t a t e s t h e l a w i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e t i m e of t h e making and o r i g i n a l performance d a t e o f t h i s c o n t r a c t . I n p a r t i t simply s t a t e s : "Any p e r s o n who d e s i r e s t o . . . s e l l o r t r a n s f e r any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t o f l a n d , t h e a c r e a g e which c a n n o t b e d e t e r m i n e d w i t h o u t a s u r v e y , must cause t h e s a m e t o be surveyed, p l a t t e d , c e r t i f i e d , and f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of t h e c o u n t y i n which s a i d l a n d l i e s , . . b e f o r e any p a r t - p o r t i o n of t h e same i s or sold o r transferred; . I t i s unlawful - % for f u r t h e r s a l e s t o b e made w i t h o u t f u l l compliance w i t h t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r , and t h e s u r ." v e y i n g and p l a t t i n g o f t h e whole t r a c t (Emphasis a d d e d . ) . .. .. The s t a t u t e g o e s on and s t a t e s t h a t t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r s h a l l n o t r e c o r d any deed which p u r p o r t s t o convey any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t u n l e s s t h e A c t h a s been comp l i e d with. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 16 l e a v e s l i t t l e d o u b t a s t o t h e respons i b i l i t y of t h e p a r t i e s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e d t h a t Defendants Yoppe would f u r n i s h a p o l i c y of t i t l e i n s u r a n c e ; i f you f i n d t h a t t h e y c o u l d n o t g e t a p o l i c y of t i t l e insurance without a survey, t h e n you must f i n d t h a t t h e y a r e l i a b l e f o r t h e reasonable c o s t of such survey." The p a r t i e s a g r e e t h a t t h e p a r c e l o f l a n d i s i r r e g u l a r . S e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e , d o e s apply t o t h i s kind of a land t r a n s f e r , i.e., i r r e g u l a r and u n a b l e t o compute a c r e a g e w i t h o u t a s u r v e y . The c o u r t , by i t s own i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , s h o u l d have g r a n t e d a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on Count I a s a m a t t e r of law. F a i l u r e t o do s o i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The j u r y v e r - d i c t on Count I w a s r e n d e r e d c o n t r a r y t o t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e l a w o f t h e case. Regarding Count 11, t h e r e i s j u s t no s u b s t a n t i a l 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 a " s p l i t " o f t h e f e e due t h e second s u r v e y o r i n e q u a l p a r t s a s w a s done by t h i s j u r y . No s u r v e y o r o r any o t h e r w i t n e s 3 t e s t i f i e d a s t o any d i v i s i o n . Attorney J o e Fennessy t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had a g r e e d t o s p l i t the fee. There w a s t e s t i m o n y as t o estimates and a c t u a l c o s t s , b u t t h a t was a l l . Additionally, t h e court instructed t h e j u r y on t h e law o f t h e case a s f o l l o w s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t c o n t r a c t damages must be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e i n both t h e i r n a t u r e and o r i g i n ; damages which a r e n o t c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , o r which are a m a t t e r of m e r e speculation cannot be t h e b a s i s of recovery. A s a p p l i e d t o t h i s case, t h e damages a l l e g e d by P l a i n t i f f must b e c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , t h e o f f s e t s c l a i m e d by Defendants must a l s o b e c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , and t h e burden i s upon e a c h p a r t y t o s o p r o v e , i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h these instructions. " This i n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i e s with equal f o r c e t o t h e argument o f f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages by r e s p o n d e n t s a g a i n s t the appellant. T h e r e was no s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e on t h i s p o i n t . The v a l u e o f t h e c l a i m e d o f f e r of a p o r t i o n of t h e l a n d was l a c k i n g . a p p e l l a n t was e v e r shown. No e v i d e n c e o f a f o r m a l t e n d e r t o There w a s no a u t h o r i t y t o s u p p o r t t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t under s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, a p o r t i o n of an i r r e g u l a r t r a c t could i n f a c t be o f f e r e d o r t h a t a p p e l l a n t c o u l d b e compelled t o a c c e p t l e s s t h a n i t s c o n t r a c t b a r g a i n o r be p e n a l i z e d f o r f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages . The h o l d i n g s of t h i s C o u r t on o t h e r i s s u e s do n o t w a r r a n t a d i s c u s s i o n o f I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 and t h e proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 4 . W e would comment, however, t h a t w h i l e q u o t i n g a s t a t u t e v e r b a t i m may r e c i t e t h e a p p l i c a b l e l a w , o f t e n t i m e s t h i s p r a c t i c e causes confusion. I n cases where m u l t i p l e problems o r c i r c u m s t a n c e s are w i t h i n t h e same s t a t u t e , o r a s t a t u t e i s b a d l y drawn, it i s f a r b e t t e r t o d e v e l o p your own i n s t r u c t i o n . I n a c l o s e circumstance it c o u l d be e r r o r t o u s e t h e s t a t u t e , i f f o r no o t h e r r e a s o n than t h a t it has misled t h e jury. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s r e v e r s e d w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment f o r a p p e l l a n t on Count I as a m a t t e r o f law. Count I1 i s remanded f o r a new t r i a l . Justice W concur: e 2 4.wccd4 Chief J ~ ~ s t i c e ( . )bL )Li7 L , Justices

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.