JUMPING RAINBOW RANCH v CONKLIN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12841 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F 1975 JUMPING RAINBOW RANCH, a Montana Corporation, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, -vs - RICHARD J. CONKLIN e t a l . , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal f r o m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellants : Berg, Angel, Andriolo & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondent: Landoe & Gary, Bozeman, Montana Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana Huppert and Swindlehurst, Livingston, Montana James Murad, San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a Submitted : June 13, 1975 Decided : A&-.. Filed: 3& ;; a * Mr. J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d iz t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County, p u r s u a n t t o 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 f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f Jumping Rainbow Ranch i s t h e owner of c e r t a i n l a n d s ; t h a t t h e q u i t c l a i m deed f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t s R i c h a r d J . Conklin and w i f e and John Orser and w i f e c o n s t i t u t e d a c l o u d on p l a i n t i f f ' s t i t l e ; and, t h a t a c t i o n s i n o b t a i n i n g and r e c o r d i n g t h e q u i t c l a i m deed w e r e r e c k l e s s , e r r o n e o u s , f r a u d u l e n t and w r o n g f u l , c a u s i n g p l a i n t i f f t o s u f f e r damages i n t h e amount of $5,000. The l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e d a d i s p u t e a s t o t h e o w n e r s h i p of c e r t a i n l a n d s i n S e c t i o n 35, Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t , M.P.M., P a r k County, Montana. P l a i n t i f f i s a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n whose s o l e owners a r e P a u l McAdam and h i s w i f e . I n 1966, P a u l McAdam purchased c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y from E l a r d and Mildred Basset. McAdam and h i s w i f e t r a n s f e r r e d t h i s p r o p e r t y t o p l a i n - t i f f c o r p o r a t i o n on A p r i l 21, 1972. A p l a t from t h e r e c o r d s o f t h e Bureau o f Land Management shows t h a t L o t s 5 and 6 i n S e c t i o n 35 l i e t o t a l l y w i t h i n t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r o f t h a t s e c t i o n and c o n t a i n 25.12 a c r e s and 37.84 a c r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . The q u i t c l a i m deed f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t s i s d a t e d A p r i l 5 , 1971, and was f i l e d on May 3 , 1971. That d e e d , e x c e p t f o r one o f two i s l a n d s d e s c r i b e d t h e r e i n , c o v e r s some of t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r of S e c t i o n 35. This d i s p u t e arose over t h e 17.9 a c r e s and t h e two i s l a n d s . The q u i t c l a i m deed d a t e d A p r i l 5 , 1971, came from one D. G. Anderson Duncan and covered p o r t i o n s of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s p r o p e r t i e s , and it i s by t h i s deed t h a t d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t i t l e . From t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l and t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n and i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , t h e h i s t o r y of t h e deed i s r e v e a l e d . Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f d e s c r i b e s it i n h i s b r i e f : "The s o u r c e of C o n k l i n ' s t i t l e t o L o t s 5 and 6 of S e c t i o n 35, Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t , l i e s deep i n t h e a n n a l s of w e s t e r n f o l k l o r e . I t seems t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o C o n k l i n , an a t t o r n e y of s i x t e e n ( 1 6 ) y e a r s ' e x p e r i e n c e , a n Anderson p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e Yellowstone V a l l e y d u r i n g t h e 1 8 0 0 ' s . I t was from t h i s Anderson t h a t Conklin f e e l s he derived merchantable t i t l e . A f t e r d i s c o v e r i n g t h a t h i s s e c r e t a r y ' s maiden name was Anderson, Conklin a s k e d M r s . Duncan t o q u i t c l a i m any i n t e r e s t s h e might of had i n L o t s 5 and 6 i n t h e N o r t h e a s t Q u a r t e r of S e c t i o n 35, Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t . The f u l l cons i d e r a t i o n f o r s i g n i n g h e r name t o t h e deed was Ten D o l l a r s ($10.00) and a box o f R u s s e l l S t o v e r chocolates." Conklin a d m i t t e d t h a t he n e v e r had L o t s 5 and 6 s u r v e y e d ; h e n e v e r purchased t i t l e i n s u r a n c e nor d i d h e e v e r s t u d y t h e a b s t r a c t o f t i t l e t o d e t e r m i n e i f any Andersons showed i n t h e c h a i n of title. H e t e s t i f i e d he had checked t h e r e c o r d s of t h e Bureau o f Land Management i n B i l l i n g s , Montana and t h e o r i g i n a l s u r v e y showed t h a t l o t s 5 and 6 had a boundary p e r i m e t e r on t h e w e s t s i d e t h e r e o f and a s t r a i g h t n o r t h - s o u t h s u r v e y l i n e and t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y l y i n g w e s t of t h e s t r a i g h t n o r t h - s o u t h s u r v e y l i n e had n e v e r been p a t e n t e d . t r i a l p l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t 5 was a s u r v e y of t h e l a n d s the official q u e s t i o n on f i l e a t t h e Bureau of Land Management o f f i c e , d a t e d J u n e 25, 1888, and showed t h a t S e c t i o n 25 and i n p a r t i c u l a r L o t s 5 and 6 t h e r e o f , had a w e s t e r n boundary a l o n g t h e r i g h t bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . Affixed t o e x h i b i t 5 , and made a p a r t t h e r e o f , i s a p h o t o g r a p h i c blow-up of t h e prope r t y i n q u e s t i o n , ~ o t 5 and 6 , w i t h a n o v e r l a y p r e p a r e d t o s c a l e . s The e x h i b i t i n d i c a t e s t h e w e s t b o u n d a r i e s of L o t s 5 and 6 were n o t s t r a i g h t l i n e s , b u t t h e r i g h t bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r , o r g e o g r a p h i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h e east bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . P l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t 5 , a 1951 U n i t e d S t a t e s G e o l o g i c a l s Survey, i n d i c a t e s t h e r e h a s been a n a c c r e t i o n t o l a n d s i n ~ o t 5 and 6 s i n c e t h e s u r v e y of 1874, a s shown on t h e J u n e 25, 1888 p l a t . The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t a l l t h e a c c r e t e d l a n d s have been exc l u s i v e l y and open and n o t o r i o u s l y owned by p l a i n t i f f and i t s predecessors in interest for more than five years preceding the commencement of this action; that plaintiff purchased the land in 1966 and immediately improved it by diking and other extensive improvements commencing in 1967, in the way of fish ponds for cultivating fish. The complaint here was filed on March 29, 1972. On April 20, 1972, plaintiff obtained a quitclaim deed, from Allyn and Agnes O'Hair, W. O1~air,/his wife, covering: "All land lying East of the middle of the Yellowstorie River in Section thirty-five (35), Townshithree (3) South, Range Nine (9) East, M..P.M., a-s more particularly any portlLots One (1) ar;d . Section th Two (3) --Live(35) tha:. :i. .: East . . . ---le the S'ellowstone River i l r of said ,'.lrty-five (35) d t ? , - ". . -s deed was filed July 21, 1972. An amended complaint was filed on July 20, 1972. Conklin deeded his interest to a Mr. and Mrs. John Orser. Orser testified by deposition that he paid Conklin between $1,000 and $5,000 for legal services, but refused to tie his testimony to the purchase of the land. San Francisco. Orser conveyed to a Cal Rossi of Rossi, according to Orser, was to pay him $1,000 per acre, when he got clear title, but had paid nothing down. Conklin, at the time of submission of his brief, alleged he no longer claimed interest in the land and the court's findings of a slander of title was erroneous because there was no substantial evidence in the record to show his conduct was malicious. Conklin raises eight issues on appeal. We find those issues may be combined into 2 issues: (1) Is there sufficient evidence for the court to find that all the lands east of the Yellowstone River, particularly Lots 5 and 6, Section 35, Township 3 South, Range 9 East, M.P.M. belonging to Jumping Rainbow Ranch, Inc.? (2) Would the actions of Conklin in filing the deed result i n s u b s t a n t i a l damage t o p l a i n t i f f , Jumping ~ a i n b o w Ranch, I n c . ? The a c t i o n of C o n k l i n , a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y of t h i s s t a t e f o r some s i x t e e n y e a r s , was an a t t e m p t t o d e p r i v e p l a i n t i f f of c e r t a i n r e a l e s t a t e . Conklin i n s i s t s now t h a t he d o e s n o t now own t h e l a n d n o r c l a i m any i n t e r e s t i n it. H i s argument t h a t h e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f ownership o n l y a s t o i t s e f f e c t on t h e monetary judgment a g a i n s t him, i s d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d . P r i o r t o judgment, and a t t h e t a k i n g of h i s d e p o s i t i o n , he s t a t e d : "A. land. No, s i r , I am c l a i m i n g a f e e i n t e r e s t i n t h i s T i t l e of record---." T h e r e a f t e r , he deeded i t t o Orser who deeded i t t o R o s s i , who w a s t o g e t $17,000 i f he and Conklin c o u l d c l e a r t h e t i t l e . I n Diamond I n v e s t m e n t Co. v . Geagan, 154 Mont. 122, 4 6 0 P.2d 760, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n must r e l y on s t r e n g t h o f h i s own t i t l e and n o t weakness of p l a i n t i f f ' s title. Roe v . Newman, 162 Mont. 135, 509 P.2d 8 4 4 ; Brown v . C a r t w r i g h t , 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 6 8 4 . Conklin's attempt t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e through a q u i t c l a i m deed by h i s s e c r e t a r y whose maiden name was Anderson i s , o f i t s e l f , t h e weakest i n t e r e s t o f t i t l e t o q u a l i f y t o c l a i m any i n t e r e s t i n the land. P e r h a p s , b e c a u s e of l a c k of s t r e n g t h of h i s own t i t l e , d e f e n d a n t g o e s on i n g r e a t l e n g t h s t o p r o v e t h e l a n d d o e s n o t belong t o p l a i n t i f f . Such d i v e r s i o n a r y arguments l e n d no s t r e n g t h t o h i s c l a i m of t i t l e . Damages t o p l a i n t i f f were b r o u g h t a b o u t by C o n k l i n ' s c l a i m of i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d , f o r i t w a s h i s p r i o r a c t i o n s t h a t n e c e s s i t a t e d t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n t o c l e a r t i t l e a t a t i m e he a l l e g e d an i n t e r e s t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s o u r c e o f h i s c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t and h i s a c t s a r e r e l e v a n t t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n of t h e m a t t e r . C o n k l i n , a s an a t t o r n e y , knew o r s h o u l d have known, t h e standard procedure f o r proving t i t l e t o land. This record i s barren of such proof. Plaintiff admitted the present acreage of Lots 5 and 6 is greater than the acreage existing at the time of the original survey, but showed that the increase was caused by accretion by the Yellowstone River, not by an error of survey. This Court in Smith v. Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 74 P.2d 450, a case arising along the Yellowstone River in Custer County, found that accreted lands belong to the riparian owner. Helland v. Custer County, 127 Mont. 23, 256 P.2d 1085. In Smith some 184 acres had accreted during a period of 60 years. Here, the evidence shows some 17 acres seem to have accreted in 80 years, and we have no difficulty agreeing with the trial court's finding in this matter. On the issue of damages, the record shows through the testimony of Paul McAdam that the plaintiff suffered considerable damage as a result of Conklin's filing his quitclaim deed. Substan- tial improvements had been made on the land in question. A drag- line had dug out a swamp to make fishponds for raising trout. Dilces had been placed along the shoreline, approximately 20 feet back from the river. Further expansion of ponds on Lots 5 and 6 had to be curtailed. McAdam testified he suffered in lost profits, at least $4,000. The trial court found plaintiff damaged in the amount of $4,000. The additional $1,000 was assessed by the trial court because of Conklin's and Orser's malicious conduct resulting in the slander of title. This Court in Continental Supply Co. v. Price, 126 Mont. 363, 374, 376, 251 P.2d 553, recognized that in view of the pleadings and record, malice as an essential element of the crosscomplaint for slander of title could be presumed. In Continental the Court cited Keiser v. Kile, 166 Okl. 41, 26 P.2d 194, 195, with approval: "The principal element in a suit for slander of title is malice." and then noted: "From the pleadings it appears affirmatively that the plaintiff in disregard of defendant's rights knowingly, recklessly, erroneously, fraudulently and wrongfully filed a blanket lien upon many legal subdivisions of real property, in which defendant held leasehold interests, all of which would demonstrate a willingness on the part of the plaintiff to cloud and disparage the title of defendant and the will to vex, annoy and harass and injure the defendant. "Where, as here, no justifiable motive is shown in the record, malice is presumed. [Citing cases and authority] " See: Vol. 20, Montana Law Review, 1 1 18: Paulson v. Kustom Enterprises, Inc., 157 Mont. 188, 483 P.2d 708. Here, the record clearly shows the action of Conlclin in filing his quitclaim deed was such as to warrant the necessary showing of malice to entitle plaintiff to punitive damages. The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of the trial court are affirmed. We concur: // , f " i 4. Q Chie ' - -. i 4- r % . Justice )ldLL-.d-a-.~ Justices \ I
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.
