FLAMM v REAL-BLT INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13029 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 MEDA FTAMM, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, . RFAL -BLT , I N C , d / b / a Ponderosa A c r e s , Defendant and A p p e l l a n t . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable R o b e r t Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellant: K u r t h , F e l t and S p e a r e , B i l l i n g s , Montana W i l l i a m J. S p e a r e a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondent: T e r r y L. S e i f f e r t a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: September 26, 1975 Decided: NCV 2 6 1975 M r . 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 Court. T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a f i n a l judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County, g r a n t i n g a permanent i n j u n c t i o n and d e c l a r a t o r y judgment a g a i n s t defendant c o r p o r a t i o n . The i n j u n c - t i o n p r o h i b i t s defendant from e v i c t i n g p l a i n t i f f from i t s housing unit w i t h o u t f i r s t complying w i t h t h e due process p r o t e c t i o n of t h e F i f t h and Fourteenth Amendments of t h e United S t a t e s Constit u t i o n , e i t h e r by c o u r t h e a r i n g o r s u f f i c i e n t a d m i n i s t r a t i v e procedure, e s t a b l i s h i n g good cause f o r t h e e v i c t i o n . Defendant l a n d l o r d i s a n o n p r o f i t c o r p o r a t i o n organized t o provide housing f o r low income and s e n i o r c i t i z e n s . It i s t h e owner of a 120 u n i t multi-family apartment complex known a s Ponderosa Acres i n B i l l i n g s , Montana. Financing of t h e complex was through a 100% f e d e r a l l y guaranteed mortgage pursuant t o 5 1715L (d) ( 3 ) . 12 U. S.C. To r e c e i v e t h e 100% f e d e r a l l y i n s u r e d mortgage, defendant was r e q u i r e d t o and d i d s i g n a r e g u l a t o r y agreement. Defendant a l s o signed a Rent Supplement C o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Department o f Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The l a t t e r c o n t r a c t allows defendant t o r e c e i v e r e n t s u b s i d i e s from t h e government on b e h a l f of low income t e n a n t s . Together, t h e s e c o n t r a c t s b i n d defendant t o government r e g u l a t i o n s i n t h e a r e a s of c o n s t r u c t i o n , d e s i g n , management, maintenance, e l i g i b i l i t y o f t h e t e n a n t s , c o n t e n t of t h e l e a s e s and amount of r e n t charged t h e tenants. The s t a n d a r d F e d e r a l Housing Administration (FHA) r e g u l a - t o r y agreement t h a t l i m i t s occupancy t o f a m i l i e s of low o r moderate income, a s d e f i n e d by t h e government was n o t r e q u i r e d o f t h e defendant c o r p o r a t i o n and t h i s p r o v i s i o n was s t r i c k e n , t h e r e b y allowing Ponderosa Acres t o admit t e n a n t s of i t s c h o i c e who were n o t involved w i t h r e n t supplements. O October 26, 1971, p l a i n t i f f r e n t e d t h e apartment involved n i n t h i s a c t i o n and e n t e r e d i n t o a l e a s e agreement. f i e d and r e c e i v e d f e d e r a l r e n t supplement. Plaintiff quali- On September 26, 1974, defendant s e n t a n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n and n o t i c e t o q u i t t o p l a i n t i f f . The n o t i c e was i n accord w i t h t h e FHA f u r n i s h e d l e a s e , which 1I provided t h a t E i t h e r p a r t y may t e r m i n a t e t h i s l e a s e * fc by g i v i n g 30 days w r i t t e n n o t i c e i n advance t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y . ff The n o t i c e followed s e v e r a l e a r l i e r a t t e m p t s by defendant t o c o l l e c t $11.38 from p l a i n t i f f f o r a broken window caused by lai in tiff's son. P r i o r t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e tenancy a s p e r t h e 30 day n o t i c e , p l a i n t i f f f i l e d h e r complaint t o r e s t r a i n d e f e n d a n t from e v i c t i n g h e r on t h e grounds t h a t t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e C o n s t i t u t i o n of t h e United S t a t e s r e q u i r e defendant t o i n c l u d e i n t h e n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n r e a s o n s which would amount t o good c a u s e and t h a t p l a i n t i f f should b e e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g t o e s t a b l i s h t h e e x i s t e n c e of good c a u s e . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t h e l d t h a t defendant i s s o i n t e r t w i n e d and i n t e r m i n g l e d w i t h t h e United S t a t e s government and i t s a g e n c i e s t h a t i t cannot b e c l a s s i f i e d a s a p r i v a t e l a n d l o r d under t h e Montana s t a t u t e s p e r t a i n i n g t o unlawful d e t a i n e r and i s s u b j e c t t o t h e F i f t h and F o u r t e e n t h Amendments t o t h e United S t a t e s C o n s t i t u t i o n a s a m a t t e r of law f o r t h e s e r e a s o n s : 1) Defendant's a c c e p t a n c e of 100% f e d e r a l l y g u a r a n t e e d f i n a n c i n g under l e g i s l a t i o n designed f o r t h e s p e c i f i c purpose of p r o v i d i n g f e d e r a l r e n t a l a s s i s t a n c e t o t h e economically underprivileged. 2) Defendant's a c c e p t a n c e of r e n t supplements and s u b s i d i e s i n b e h a l f of e l i g i b l e low income t e n a n t s and s p e c i f i c a l l y the p l a i n t i f f . 3) ~ e f e n d a n t ' sa c c e p t a n c e and e x e c u t i o n of a r e g u l a t o r y agreement p e r t a i n i n g t o method of o p e r a t i o n , form o f l e a s e s , e l i g i b l e t e n a n t s , e t c . , w i t h t h e S e c r e t a r y o f Housing and Urban Development. Defendant a p p e a l s from t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t judgment. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d f o r review concern whether t h e i n v o l v e menr o i t h e f e d e r a l government i n d e f e n d a n t ' s b u s i n e s s i s s u f f i c i e n t r o remove i t s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n a s a p r i v a t e l a n d l o r d . The United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n Burton v. Wilmington Parking A u t h o r i t y , 365 U.S. 715, 8 1 S.Ct. 856, 6 L ed 2d 45, noted t h a t whether a s t a t e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y involved i n p r i v a t e a c t i v i t i e s t o make t h o s e a c t i v i t i e s governmental i n n a t u r e w i l l depend upon a c l o s e a n a l y s i s of t h e f a c t s of each c a s e . P l a i n t i f f r e l i e s h e a v i l y upon t h e F i r s t C i r c u i t Court of Appeals c a s e of McQueen v. Druker, 317 F.Supp. 1122, a f f ' d 438 F.2d 781, which h e l d t h e l a n d l o r d t o be w i t h i n t h e scope of t h e F i r s t , F i f t h and Fourteenth Amendments. Likewise p l a i n t i f f c i t e d and r e l i e s on McClellan v. U n i v e r s i t y Heights, I n c . , 338 F.Supp. 374; and Colon v. Tompkins Square Neighbors, I n c . , 294 F.Supp. 134. A s h e r e t o f o r e pointed o u t , a c l o s e a n a l y s i s of t h e c i t e d c a s e s r e v e a l s s i g n i f i c a n t d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e f a c t s i t u a t i o n s of a substantive nature. I n McQueen, McClellan and Colon t h e housing involved i n t h o s e c a s e s had t h e s e a d d i t i o n a l government t i e s n o t found i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e : 1 ) The housing p r o j e c t s were b u i l t on land which was p a r t of an urban renewal p r o j e c t . 2) The c i t y o r s t a t e government gave t h e owners of t h e housing p r o j e c t s reduced t a x r a t e s . 3) The d a i l y o p e r a t i o n s of t h e p r o j e c t s were r e g u l a t e d and s u p e r v i s e d by c i t y , county and s t a t e - a s w e l l a s f e d e r a l a g e n c i e s . 4 ) Occupancy of t h e p r o j e c t s was l i m i t e d e x c l u s i v e l y t o low o r moderate income people a s d e f i n e d by t h e f e d e r a l government. P l a i n t i f f f u r t h e r contends ( a ) t h a t defendant i s s u b j e c t t o t h e requirements of t h e f e d e r a l c o n s t i t u t i o n because i t i s performing a governmental f u n c t i o n ; (b) t h a t t h e announced p o l i c y o f t h e f e d e r a l government i s 11 t h e r e a l i z a t i o n a s soon a s f e a s i b l e 09 t h e g o a l of a decent home and s u i t a b l e l i v i n g environment f o r every American family1', 42 U. S.C. 1441; and ( c ) t h a t t h e program h e r e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s designed t o a s s i s t p r i v a t e i n d u s t r y i n providing housing. For support p l a i n t i f f c i t e s McQueen; Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L ed 265; Evans v. Newton, 382 U.S. 296, 86 S . C t . 486, 15 L ed 2d 373. McQueen has a l r e a d y been f a c t u a l l y d i s t i n g u i s h e d . Yarsh involved t h e r i g h t t o d i s - t r i b u t e r e l i g i o u s l i t e r a t u r e i n a company owned town c o n t r a r y t o t h e wishes of t h e town's management. Court found s t a t e a c t i o n t h e r e . t o a t r u s t established i n a w i l l . The United S t a t e s Supreme Evans involved a park c r e a t e d pursuant The park was i n i t i a l l y operated by t h e c i t y and l a t e r by p r i v a t e persons. The United S t a t e s Supreme Court found i n f a c t , t h e o p e r a t i o n and maintenance of t h e park had n o t changed hands. The Marsh and Evans "public f u n c t i o n " d o c t r i n e has t o d a t e n o t been a p p l i e d t o f a c t s a s a r e i n t h e c a s e b e f o r e u s , and we a r e n o t i n c l i n e d t o expand t h a t d o c t r i n e . I n McQueen v. Druker, 438 F.2d 781, 784, r e l i e d on by p l a i n t i f f , C i r c u i t Judge Coffin s t a t e d : 11 e view our t a s k of W ' s i f t i n g f a c t s and weighing c i r c u m s t a n c e s ' a s one t o be done t o t h e end o f determining when i t i s f a i r and r e a s o n a b l e t o hold an i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t t o t h e same d u t i e s o f observance of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s a s a r e imposed on a governmental u n i t . Mere r e c e i p t of f i n a n c i a l subsidy and s u b j e c t i o n t o some r e g u l a t i o n a r e t h e c o n d i t i o n s of much of our s o c i e t a l l i f e . N e1i t h e r f a c t o r - - o r both t o g e t h e r - - i s d i s p o s i t i v e of s t a t e a c t i o n I 11 . The r e c e i p t of f e d e r a l b e n e f i t s i n t h e form of mortgage insurance and r e n t supplements under 12 U. S.C. 51715L (d) ( 3 ) , w i t h freedom t o s e l e c t t h e t e n a n t s remaining i n t h e l a n d l o r d , does n o t make t h e defendant an agency of t h e f e d e r a l government o r t h e s t a t e of Montana s o a s t o r e q u i r e defendant t o accord t h e procedural due process which t h e F i f t h and Fourteenth Amendments demand o f f e d e r a l government. McGuane v. Chenango Court, I n c . , 431 F.2d 1189, (2d C i r . ) , C e r t . denied 401 U.S. 2d 532. 994, 91 S . C t . 1238, 28 L ed See a l s o analogous d i s c u s s i o n : Ham v. Holy Rosary H o s p i t a l , 165 Mont. 369, 529 P.2d 361, 3 1 S t . Rep. 948, and c a s e s c i t e d therein. A review of t h e a u t h o r i t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e t e n a n t ' s p o s i t i o n would be c o r r e c t i f t h e l a n d l o r d was p u b l i c , i f urban renewal was involved, o r i f t h e f e d e r a l government's c o n t r o l was s o complete a s t o c o n s t i t u t e t h i s l a n d l o r d ' s a c t i v i t i e s t o be governmental i n n a t u r e . 12 U.S.C.A. 51715L ( d ) ( 3 ) , and a n n o t a t i o n s thereto. Here t h e r e n t supplement c o n t r a c t and r e g u l a t o r y agreement do noL appear t o c r e a t e any more governmental c o n t r o l than would be expected i n any commercial t r a n s a c t i o n s e c u r i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l loan and r e c e i v i n g r e n t supplements of some p r o p o r t i o n . Each agreement, one w i t h FHA, and t h e o t h e r w i t h HUD, c o n t a i n s p r o v i s i o n s p r i m a r i l y t o p r o t e c t t h e money being advanced by t h e United S t a t e s . Nowhere a r e t h e elements of urban renewal, p u b l i c housing, c o n t r o l over p r o s p e c t i v e t e n a n t s and t h e l i m i t a t i o n o f them t o "low income", s p e c i a l concessions by any governmental agency f o r reduced i n t e r e s t r a t e s , guaranteed r e t u r n of investment, r e l i e f from any t a x e s e i t h e r s t a t e o r f e d e r a l , o r a c q u i s i t i o n of land by any governmental body. The judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d and t h e cause dismissed. 4 ' 1 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.