MANLEY v GRIMES
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
92-119 NO. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1993 WILLIAM A. MANLEY and MARGARET H. MANLEY, Plaintiffs and Respondents, -vsWILLIAM GRIMES and HILDRETH GRIMES, and R. V. BOTTOMLY and IRENE BOTTOMLY, Defendants APPEAL FROM: and Appellants. District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable Dorothy First Judicial District, of Lewis and Clark, McCarter, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: Monte D. Beck, Attorney Donald Ostrem; Graybill, Great Falls, Montana For at Law, Bozeman, Ostrem, Warner Montana & Crotty, Respondents: Robert Montana J. Sewell, Submitted Jr.: Smith on Briefs: Law Firm, January Helena 28, 1993 Justice John Conway Harrison This located is an action near delivered the partition community the for of Lincoln, from a December 13, 1991 order Judicial District, not an appealable that the order issues thirty parcel. undivided located over appeal a dispute and Irene Manley is taken is is not we will not discuss former between in on a tract friends Bottomly an undivided of initially land one-half interest 1980, and for over owned the entire 1958 and, in interest on the the appeal the December 13, 1991 order Rule 1, M.R.App.P., evidences R.V. half the First to William and Hildreth property was jointly to William a one-half utilized of A cabin Grimes. by all their the parties a number of years. In Grimeses partition November outside May 1986, from of of that Although the Manleys building another the property. and discussed advised appropriate the filed specifics this cabin action on the The matter Immediately 1987. the court Counsel and that under They conveyed and Margaret We dismiss from which who had been co-tenants years. for taken raised. The record neighbors Court is order. In view of our holding the other property Appeal Montana. County. order of the Court. of recreational of the District Lewis and Clark because we conclude an appealable the Opinion trial, a resolution that papers would of the agreement 2 filed for the the and trial parties for in met of the case. a settlement be enjoin property was set before the court to had been reached at a later were not entered date. into the court record, since that the time, settlement "Petition for entered signed 1991, by all the an Order" and Bottomlys to of partition" Bottomlys not by the Manleys Argument in on the based November and the or their Court on September District Court entered its a the Grimeses that 1987. Grimeses filed judgment for on the should entry oral of agreement The stipulation and their a was counsel but counsel. "Petition District efforts to the court "Stipulation an attached by the submitted in which they asserted parties numerous of them. pursuant by the executed Despite have never and decree judgment reached was vacated. the parties agreement On May 3, be trial for an Order" After 5, 1991. decision was heard receiving by the briefs, the on December 13, 1991, ordering as follows: IT IS HEREBY ORDEREDthat the motion to enforce the oral settlement agreement and to enter a decree of partition is DENIED. The parties are hereby given until January 31, 1992, to resolve the controversy. If this Court does not receive a notice of settlement by that date, partition proceedings will be ordered in accordance with Title 70, Chapter 29, of the Montana Code Annotated. From this Is under order, the the Bottomlys District Court's and the Grimeses December 13, appeal. 1991 order appealable Rule 1, M.R.App.P.? Rule 1, M.R.App.P., provides in part: (b) In civil cases a party aggrieved may appeal from a judgment or order, except when expressly made final by law, in the following cases: (1) From a final judgment . . . . (2) . . . from such interlocutory 3 judgments or orders, in actions for partition as determine the rights and interests of the respective parties and direct partition to be made. In this not case, a final which the December judgment. determines Nor is the be made. The the rights determines order their parties then Partition will with court aside the MCA. appealability of Court's appeal. Court's issue obliterate until this a full IT returned compliance denial issue; it of the ORDERED that to with the District that court's 1991 this has their the is ceased our report or set appealable. issue moot of the because of to dismiss this exist. This to to time 70-29-212, not motion motion The modify, is order postponed record file that Manleys' the merely order the the Section claim it denying rejects proceedings. confirm, 1991 13, when that gives within referees to 13, of the moot order the Grimeses December is review IS the it partition new referees. December assert because resolved order would appoint the summary was not to previous An matter to controversy." decides and illogically parties is partition the court Bottomlys or order resolve the the judgment merely after that Court order until or District court's occur and report the "to court the and directs Grimeses The the the We hold The if not parties of time of an interlocutory rights of that, allowed, this the stipulation. stated the it and the an extension court 1991 order of the Bottomlys offered 13, dismiss did consideration not of it was made. matter Court December 4 is for dismissed further 13, 1991 and shall proceedings order. be in We concur: 5 Justice William I If Company (1993), binding time stipulation execute the by the contract. the opinion, the was parties which not was made, was subsequently the the enforce that District the based order the contract with on the was final and is even more orally was the attorneys to a contract here, in it each was Grimeses in clear my that presence, attorney. the but the are I would not rights entitled partition Hetherinqton. and who other's determine for the agreed that, and Grimeses, does at of Manleys' by the appealable 6 case it Manleys Court. the parties and in then majority, of the order rationale was present Bottomlys the 91-602, No. Ford were while Bottomlys v. parties to writing Court their property, reduced by the because the agreement The District parties this agreed was executed Manleys. in determined, an oral Cause the and all and Hetherington by In Hetherinaton, fully reached The document of in Court parties all plaintiffs for Supreme concluded because the spoke agreement Montana to contract dissenting. oral as agreed a binding Sr., the contract, stipulation to Hunt, dissent. Motor a E. I by of to of the would hold reverse the
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.
