MILKOVICH v ORR
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 12803 F F OTN I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O M N A A 1975 MILKOVICH , LR UA P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, ARTHUR ORR and C R L J. ORR, AO husband and w i f e , Defendants 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 F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : C h e s t e r L. Jones argued, V i r g i n i a C i t y , Montana C a r l Davis, D i l l o n , Montana For Respondent : C o r e t t e , Smith and Dean, B u t t e , Montana R. D. C o r e t t e , Jr. argued, and Gerald R. A l l e n , argued, B u t t e , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : January 13, 1975 FEB 13 1 9 ~ Mr. 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 C o u r t . T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d i n Madison County d e c r e e i n g s p e c i f i c performance o f a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e of r e a l p r o p e r t y . The c a s e was t r i e d w i t h o u t a j u r y . Find- i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law were e n t e r e d . During t h e s p r i n g of 1972, p l a i n t i f f Lura Milkovich l e a r n e d t h a t d e f e n d a n t s O r r had l a n d f o r s a l e n e a r E n n i s , The O r r s a d v i s e d M r s . Milkovich t o c o n t a c t one Montana. Armitage, t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r . O A p r i l 1 7 , 1972, Lura n Milkovich s i g n e d a " R e c e i p t and Agreement t o S e l l and P u r c h a s e " . Armitage t h e n s e n t t h i s c o n t r a c t t o C o s t a Rica f o r t h e s i g n a t u r e s They s i g n e d t h e c o n t r a c t and r e t u r n e d i t t o A r m i - of t h e O r r s . tage. A d u p l i c a t e o r i g i n a l was t h e n m a i l e d t o Milkovich. The c o n t r a c t d e s c r i b e d t h e p r o p e r t y a s : "11 Acres West of and a d j o i n i n g p r e s e n t County Road i n S e c t i o n 23, Township 5 S o u t h , Range 1 West, M M i n c l u d i n g 1 0 i n c h e s o f J a c k Creek P , Water. " I t a l s o p r o v i d e d "Survey t o be a p p l i e d f o r and p a i d f o r by buyer." I n compliance w i t h t h e c o n t r a c t , Milkovich o r d e r e d a s u r v e y d u r i n g t h e l a t e s p r i n g of 1972. A p r e l i m i n a r y s u r v e y was p r e p a r e d by a n u n l i c e n s e d e n g i n e e r and t h e r e a f t e r one Donald Fenton was c o n t a c t e d t o complete a s u r v e y . August 1 2 , 1972. Fenton d i d s o on The s u r v e y w a s approved by Armitage, O r r s ' r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t , and by t h e i r c o u n s e l . Milkovich d e p o s i t e d $500 w i t h Armitage. The t r i a l c o u r t s e p c i f i c a l l y found Armitage had w r i t t e n a u t h o r i t y t o a c t f o r O r r s i n t h e s a l e and t h a t b o t h O r r s r a t i fied h i s actions. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e : (1) Did t h e t r i a l c o u r t e r r i n g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c p e r - formance where t h e c o n t r a c t d i d n o t d e s c r i b e w i t h p a r t i c u l a r i t y cne Land s o l d ? (2) Did the trial court err in granting specific geriournance where the contract description was inconsistent with the final description? (3) Did the trial court err in inserting into the judgment a provision for payment of a broicerls commission when the broker is not a party to the action? As to issues 1 and 2, appellants Orr cite Ryan v. Davis, 5 Yonc. 505, 511, 6 P. 339, for the proposition that the legal description set forth in the written agreement is not complete and exclusive of all other lands and therefore is not sufficient to permit specific performance. The agreement which the trial court ordered to be specifis a l l y enforced was signed by Milkovich on April 17, 1972. was signed by the Orrs in Costa Rica a few days later. It For sev- eral months after the agreement was signed there was no question raised as to the location of the property covered by the agreement. Performance was refused by the Orrs under the pretense that a mortgage release could not be obtained. Everyone at that time knew exactly the piece of property agreed upon. Both agents of the Orrs, Mr. Armitage and Mr. Jones, approved the survey secured by Milkovich, which described the property by metes and bounds. Some extrinsic evidence is necessary to connect the des- cription in the original signed agreement, but the sellers' agents provide the connection. Such extrinsic evidence is ad- missible to explain a description in a writing. In Ryan it is said: " * * * it is not essential that the description have such particulars and tokens of identification as to render a resort to extrinsic aid entirely needless when the writing comes to be applied to the subject-matter. The terms may be abstract and of a general nature, but they must be sufficient to fit and comprehend the property which i s t h e s u b j e c t of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , s o t h a t , w i t h t h e a s s i s t a n c e of e x t e r n a l e v i d e n c e , t h e d e s c r i p t i o n , w i t h o u t b e i n g c o n t r a d i c t e d o r added t o , can be c o n n e c t e d w i t h , and a p p l i e d t o , t h e v e r y p r o p e r t y i n t e n d e d , and t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f a l l o t h e r p r o p e r t y * * *." I t i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e of law i n Montana t h a t a memorandum may c o n s i s t of s e v e r a l w r i t i n g s . Anderson v . KFBB B r o a d c a s t i n g Corp., 143 Mont. 423, 391 P.2d 2 . The t r i a l c o u r t used s e v e r a l of t h e w r i t i n g s of t h e p a r t i e s and we s e e no e r r o r i n s o d o i n g under t h e f a c t s and circumstances here. Here, Milkovich n o t o n l y made t h e down payment b u t s e c u r e d t h e s u r v e y and had it approved by t h e O r r s ' agents. These m a t t e r s made t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n c e r t a i n . A s t o a p p e l l a n t s ' i s s u e 3--the t r i a l court inserted i n t o t h e judgment a p a r a g r a p h which r e a d s : "7. That a r e a l e s t a t e commission o f 6 % of t h e s e l l i n g p r i c e of t h e above-described p r o p e r t y s h a l l be p a i d t o Jess C . Armitage a s r e a l e s t a t e a g e n t f o r t h e D e f e n d a n t s , S e l l e r s , s a i d commission s h a l l be $660.00, t o be p a i d a t t h e t i m e of c l o s i n g * * *.'I There was no i s s u e b e f o r e t h e c o u r t on t h a t s u b j e c t . Armitage w a s n o t a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , and i t i s o b v i o u s t h e r e a l e s t a t e commission c a n n o t be l i t i g a t e d h e r e . The r e a l e s t a t e agent here d i d n o t follow t h e property owners' d i r e c t i o n s t o r e q u i r e c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. C l e a r l y , t h e owners d o n o t owe a commission under c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u c h a s t h e s e . Accord- i n g l y t h i s i t e m o f t h e judgment i s r e v e r s e d and s e t a s i d e . I n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . p a r t y s h a l l pay i t s own c o s t s . Each We c o n c u r : Chief Justice
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.
