WALKER v TSCHACHE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12493 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O MONTANA F 1973 . HOLJE e t a 1. , FRED WALKER, BRIA V P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs - J U N I O R W. TSCHACHE, Defendant and Appellant. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING : Counsel of ~ e c o r d : F o r Appellant : Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana. Joseph Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondent: James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana. Gregory 0 . Morgan argued, Bozeman, Montana. Submitted: A p r i l 30, 1973 Decided : jdYn Filed : MAY 1C; 1373 16 M r , J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court, T h i s i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by J u n i o r W. Tschache seeking a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , o r o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t , a f t e r a judgment rendered i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of t h e e i g h t e e n t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of G a l l a t i n . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , a s w e l l a s Fred Walker and f o u r t e e n o t h e r p a r t i e s a r e respondents. I n l a t e February 1973 p e t i t i o n e r , owner of t h e Wagon Wheel Park, a t r a i l e r park l o c a t e d i n Bozeman, Montana, gave n o t i c e t o h i s t e n a n t s , respondents h e r e i n , t h a t he was going t o i n c r e a s e t h e t r a i l e r park r e n t from $35 p e r month t o $50, such i n c r e a s e t o be e f f e c t i v e A p r i l 1, 1973. The n o t i c e t o each respondent t e n a n t was i n w r i t i n g , placed in an envelope addressed t o t h e t e n a n t , and d e p o s i t e d i n t h e mail box of t h e addressed t e n a n t . Some of t h e t e n a n t s f e l t t h e i n c r e a s e was n o t f a i r and r e f u s e d t o pay, For t h e purpose o f d i s c u s s i n g t h e n e c e s s i t y o f t h e i n c r e a s e with t h e owner of t h e t r a i l e r park, t h e t e n a n t s organized a meeting t o which a l l t h e t e n a n t s and t h e owner were i n v i t e d . d i d n o t change t h e p o s i t i o n s of t h e p a r t i e s . This meeting Thereafter t h e tenant respondents tendered only $35 f o r t h e i r r e n t , which was r e f u s e d by t h e owner, Upon t h e i r r e f u s a l t o pay t h e r e n t i n c r e a s e , t h e owner served t h e s e t e n a n t s w i t h t h r e e day n o t i c e s of d e f a u l t , i n t e n d i n g t o follow up with a c t i o n s f o r unlawful d e t a i n e r . Respondent t e n a n t s then f i l e d an a c t i o n f o r d e c l a r a t o r y judgment i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The c o u r t g r a n t e d a temporary r e s t r a i n - i n g o r d e r e n j o i n i n g f u r t h e r a c t i o n by t h e owner and r e q u i r i n g t h e t e n a n t s t o p o s t a bond. T r i a l w i t h o u t a j u r y was h e l d on A p r i l 1 3 , 1973, a t which time f o u r t e e n of t h e f i f t e e n respondent t e n a n t s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e y had r e c e i v e d t h e n o t i c e s more than t h e s t a t u t o r y f i f t e e n days p r i o r t o t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of t h e i n c r e a s e , A f t e r p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e evidence, t h e c o u r t ordered o r a l argument on t h e i s s u e of d e l i v e r y of n o t i c e . A t t h e conclusion t h e r e o f , counsel f o r p e t i t i o n e r ~ o v e dand r e q u e s t e d t h e c o u r t t o r u l e from t h e bench; p e t i t i o n e r 31~0 waived any r i g h t t o b r i e f t h e a a t t e r f u r t h e r . I n support ji h i s r e q u e s t , p e t i t i o n e r c a l l e d a t t e n t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h e 4 a t c was A p r i l 13 and i f n o t i c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t h e wanted t o know 20 t h a t he could t h e n a t t e m p t t o make p r o p e r s e r v i c e of n o t i c e d i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y time l i m i t . The c o u r t r e f u s e d p e t i t i o n e r ' s r e q u e s t and c a l l e d f o r b r i e f s and f i n d i n g s of f a c t from t h e p a r t i e s . O A p r i l 1 8 , 1973 t h e c o u r t rendered i t s f i n d i n g s which h e l d n t h ~ a s a m a t t e r of law t under s e c t i o n 67-710, R.C.M. 1947, f o r a l a n d l o r d t o change t h e terms of a r e n t a l agreement from month t o month he must s e r v e w r i t t e n n o t i c e upon t h e t e n a n t p e r s o n a l l y , i n a manner i n which r e t u r n could be provided and apy o t h e r s e r v i c e was i n a d e q u a t e and w i t h o u t e f f e c t , Following t h a t judgment, p e t i t i o n e r made a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h i s Court f o r a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l and, i n r e s p o n s e t h e r e t o , an o r d e r t o show c a u s e was i s s u e d t o r e s p o n d e n t s and t o t h e d i s t r i c t court. Hearing on t h e o r d e r was h e l d on A p r i l 30, 1973, Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r t h i s C o u r t ' s review: (1) whether t h i s C o u r t , i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n , should i s s u e an o r d e r o f s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l , and (2) was t h e s e r v i c e made by t h e owner on t h e t e n a n t s proper and w i t h i n s e c t i o n 67-710, R.C.M. 1947? Respondents a r g u e t h i s i s n o t t h e proper s i t u a t i o n f o r t h e i s s u a n c e of a w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l . I n support they base t h e i r argument on S t a t e ex r e l . Whiteside v . F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 24 Mont. 539, 63 P. 395. I n t h e i n s t a n t case i t i s apparent t h s r e a r e no f a c t u a l i s s u e s t o be a r g u e d , The important f a c t qucst i o n was s t i p u l a t e d by the parties -- t h a t respondents did 1 r e c e i v e w r i t t e n n o t i c e of t h e i n c r e a s e p r i o r t o f i f t e e n days b e f o r e t h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e of the i n c r e a s e . l a w t o be determined--was There i s only a q u e s t i o n of t h e n o t i c e given p r o p e r ? It i s a l s o c l e a r t h a t although t h i s law s u i t i s maintained by only f i f t e e n t e n a n t s t h e r e a r e approximately one hundred o t h e r t e n a n t s whose r i g h t s could b e a f f e c t e d by a d e c i s i o n t h a t t h e owner gave improper n o t i c e . Based on t h e s e f a c t s , w e f i n d t h i s i s a proper s i t u a t i o n f o r a ~ ~ r jof t s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r s l . - C+ O t h i s q u e s t i o n we f i n d c l e a r s u p p o r t f o r our p o s i t i o n i n n r e c e n t c a s e s decided by t h i s Court. I n S t a t e of Montana v , D i s t r i c t . , o u r t , 155 Mont, 344, 349,350, 472 P.2d 302, t h i s same argument P &as p r e s e n t e d . 31 The p a r t i e s t h e r e argued t h a t an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r w r i t of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l was unwarranted because: * "9: t h e remedy by a p p e a l a f t e r t r i a l i s a v a i l a b l e and because t h e p e t i t i o n f o r s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l does n o t a l l e g e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of an emergency n a t u r e a u t h o r i z i n g i n t e r v e n t i o n by t h i s Court by means of an e x t r a ~ r dni r y w r i t . " a 3f c o u r s e , t h e f a c t s i n t h e above quoted c a s e d i f f e r from t h o s e o f t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , b u t t h e r e a s o n i n g employed i s a p p l i c a b l e h e r e . 'de s t a t e d t h e r e t h a t a w r i t should i s s u e , p a r t l y because: " ~ d d i t i o n a lexpense t o l i t i g a n t s and t a x p a y e r s becomes u n j u s t i f i a b l e . Under t h e s e circums t a n c e s t h e d i s c r e t i o n a r y e x e r c i s e of s u p e r v i s o r y c o n t r o l i s b o t h ' n e c e s s a r y ' and ' p r o p e r ' t o t h e complete e x e r c i s e of an a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n w i t h i n t h e meaning of A r t i c l e VIII, Sec, 3 of t h e I t i s equally authorized Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n . \ e r e a s 1 n e c e s s a r y ' and ' p r o p e r ' supervisi.on of a t r i a l c o u r t o t h e r t h a n hy a p p e a l w i t h i n t h e ambit .~f Rule 1 7 ( a ) of t h e Montana Rul-es of A p p e l l a t e Civi. 1 Procedure. 11 *** One of t h e most r e c e n t c a s e s concerning t h e q u e s t i o n of a proper t i n e ):o i s s u e an e x t r a o r d i n a r y w r i t i s S t a t e ex r e l , S t z t e Eighway n ,.,o~~mission D i s t r i c t Court, v. it,Rep. 615. instant case. Mon t . , 499 P. 2d 1228, 29 The f a c t s of t h a t c a s e a r c somewhat s i m i l a r t o t h e The q u z s t i o n of t h e c a s e was a q u e s t i o n o f law, whether t h e s e r v i c e o f p r o c e s s i n t h e a c t i o n was proper and i n accordance w i t h t h e a p p r o p r i a t e s t a t u t e . That c a s e could a l s o have had an e f f e c t on a number of p o s s i b l e l i e n h o l d e r s . There we c i t e d earlier Montana c a s e s which d i s c u s s e d t h e need t o p r e v e n t extended and n e e d l e s s l i t i g a t i o n and t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e q u e s t f o r a w r i t :?as wi t h i n a reasonabl-e time a f t e r t h e a c t i o n sought t o be remedied xas taken. I n t h a t i n s t a n c e we i s s u e d t h e w r i t , even though t h e remedy o f a p p e a l was a v a i l a b l e . Here we f i n d a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n , t h e r e i s no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e o n l y a q u e s t i o n of law on t h c proper s e r v i c e ; t h e d e c i s i o n could a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s o f a l a r g e number of t e n a n t s ; and t h i s a c t i o n w i l l prevent n e e d l e s s l i t i g a t i o n . With t h e s e circumstances and p r i o r c a s e law upholding our p o s i t i o n , we w i l l i s s u e t h e w r i t . The second i s s u e i s whether t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e upon t h e t e n a n t s was proper and w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t e . Section 67-710, R , C . M , 1947, provides: 1 1Terms of l e a s e may be changed by n o t i c e . In a l l l e a s e s of l a n d s o r tenements, o r of any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n , from month t o month, t h e l a n d l o r d may, upon g i v i n g n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g a t l e a s t f i f t e e n days b e f o r e t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e month, change t h e terms of t h e l e a s e , t o t a k e e f f e c t a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e month, The n o t i c e , when served upon t h e t e n a n t , s h a l l of i t s e l f o p e r a t e and b e e f f e c t u a l t o c r e a t e and e s t a b l i s h , a s a p a r t of t h e l e a s e , t h e terms, r e n t , and conditions specified in the notice, i f the tenant s h a l l c o n t i n u e t o h o l d t h e premises a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e month, Iv S e c t i o n 67-710 r e q u i r e s "giving n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g " . Respon- d e n t s argue t h a t t h i s n o t i c e means t h e same a s j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s e r v i c e , a s contemplated by t h e r u l e s o f c i v i l procedure. Under t h a t t h e o r y we would be imposing t h e requirements of s e r v i c e of process f o r j u r i s d i c t i o n a l m a t t e r s upon l a n d l o r d and t e n a n t n o t i c e s . This i s an attempt t o merge t h e s e p a r a t e concepts of n o t i c e and j u r i s d i c t i o n , which t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court h a s seen f i t t o s e p a r a t e and h o l d a p a r t , I n Pfullane v , C e n t r a l Hanover Bank and T r u s t Company, 339 U,S. 306, 70 S,Ct. 652, 94 L ed 865, 873, t h e c o u r t was faced w i t h t h e problem o f n o t i c e requirements. Mullane involved an accounting by t h e t r u s t e e bank f o r a common t r u s t fund. There were b o t h % n - s t a t e and o u t - o f - s t a t e b e n e f i c i a r i e s and t h e t r u s t e e had given n o t i c e t o both c a t e g o r i e s only by p u b l i c a t i o n pursuant t o a New York s t a t u t e . I n s t r i k i n g down t h i s inadequate form of n o t i c e f o r t h e i n - s t a t e b e n e f i c i a r i e s , t h e c o u r t d e f i n e d t h e due process requirements of n o t i c e : An elementary and fundamental requirement o f due prn c e s s i n any proceeding which i s t o b e accorded f i n a l i t y i s n o t i c e reasonabl-y c a l c u l a t e d , under a l l t h e circumstances, t o a p p r i s e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s of t h e pendency of t h e a c t i o n and a f f o r d them an oppor* The n o t i c e t u n i t y t o present t h e i r objections. must be of such a n a t u r e as r e a s o n a b l y t o convey t h e II ** r+ r e q u i r e d information * 5; " dnd i t must a f f o r d a r e a s o n a b l e time f o r t h o s e i n t e r e s t e d t o make t h e i r appearance ik 9 ~ . But i f w i t h due r e g a r d f o r t h e ~racticalities and p e c u l i a r i t i e s o f t h e c a s e t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s a r e reasonably met, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l requirements a r e s a t i s f i e d . 1 1 Larer i n Yullane t h e c o u r t s a i d , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o g i v i n g n o t % c e : "The means employed must be such a s one d e s i r o u s of a c t u a l l y informing t h e a b s e n t e e might reasonably adopt t o accomplish i t . I I Applying t h e above standard t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e r e i s no doubt t h e owner was a t t e m p t i n g t o communicate with o r a c t u a l l y inform t h e t e n a n t s of t h e i n c r e a s e i n r e n t , The means employed was by p l a c i n g t h e addressed envelopes i n t h e mail boxes of t h e tenants. I t i s c l e a r t h e t e n a n t s were a c t u a l l y n o t i f i e d of t h e i n c r e a s e ; f o u r t e e n of t h e f i f t e e n respondents so s t i p u l a t e d . Their only argument i s t h a t t h i s n o t i c e i s n o t t h e same n o t i c e r e q u i r e d i n o r d e r t o attempt t o g a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n over a n o t h e r . n o t our view of t h e i n t e n t of s e c t i o n 67-710, R.C.M. That i s 1947. The i n t e n t of t h e s t a t u t e i s t o inform t e n a n t s of an i n c r e a s e i n r e n t , vihich was done i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . Respondents c i t e Colyear v. T o b r i n e r , 7 Cal.2d 735, 62 P.2d 741, 745. They argue t h a t c a s e involved a s t a t u t e which was t h e p a t t e r n f o r ~ o n t a n as' s t a t u t e and t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n given t h e s t a t u t e by t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t should be p e r s u a s i v e i n t h i s Court. f n d i s c u s s i n g t h e type of s e r v i c e r e q u i r e d by t h e s t a t u t e , t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t i n Colyear s a i d : I1 As t o t h e m a t t e r of n o t i c e , i t may be s a i d t h a t where a s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s n o t i c e and does n o t s p e c i f y how i t s h a l l be g i v e n , t h e presumption i s t h a t p e r s o n a l However, p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e service i s required, may be made through t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i t y of t h e m a i l s . The p o s t o f f i c e department, a s w e l l a s any o t h e r t y p e r ~ fmessenger, may be used t o e f f e c t p e r s o n a l s e r v i c e . Shearman v . Jorgensen, 1 0 6 Cal. 4 8 3 , 39 P. 8 6 3 ; Heinlen v , Heilbron, 94 C a l , 636, 30 P. 8 . II * * Here, t h e ovner u t i l i z e d a d i f f e r e n t type o f messenger s e r v i c e t h a n the United S t a t e s Post O f f i c e ; t h e n o t i c e s were d e l i v e r e d by hand t o t h e mail boxes. There i s no mandate i n t h e s t a t u t e , o r i n t h e c a s e c i t e d by respondents, which r e q u i r e s s e r v i c e a s contemplated i n t h e r u l e s of procedure. I t does n o t follow t h a t by p l a c i n g a stamp on t h e s e n o t i c e s and p l a c i n g them i n t h e m a i l , a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s t a t e s i n i t s Memorandum, t h a t an o t h e r w i s e improper s e r v i c e would then meet t h e s t a t u t o r y requirements. W hold t h a t t h e n o t i c e r e q u i r e d i n s e c t i o n 67-710, R.C.M. e 1947, does n o t mean j u r i s d i c t i o n a l s e n r i c e and t h a t p e t i t i o n e r d i d s e r v e proper n o t i c e upon respondents w i t h i n t h e s t a t u t o r y time l i m i t , Respondents a l s o contend t h e owner improperly and unlawfully used t h e mail boxes. Perhaps t h e f e d e r a l government h a s an i n t e r e s t h e r e , b u t i t does n o t impress t h i s C o t ~ r ta s an i s s u e p e r t i n e n t t o whether n o t i c e was given and r e c e i v e d . While we do n o t approve o f t h e method used, t h e t e n a n t s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e y i n f a c t r e c e i v e d n o t i c e i n w r i t i n g , such i s s u f f i c i e n t . W t h e r e f o r e o r d e r t h a t t h e w r i t i s s u e ; t h e judgment of t h e e d i s t r i c t c o u r t be a n n u l l e d ; and such f u r t h e r proceedings b e had a s i n t h e premises r e q u i r e d , ', ,,,-rC*~*,,---", &J.A/i ---"-41,,,,-,-,-,C , Associ'ate 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.