HORACEK v HUDSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Na. 12757 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 STANLEY and LUELLA HORACEK, husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , WILLIAM and VELMA HUDSON, husband and w i f e , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r t c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Ceunsel of Record : For Appellants : Robert L. Stephens argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: Michael J. Whalen argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: ~ecided : Filed: AQG 5 15 y A p r i l 8, 1975 AU G 5 :975 Mr. 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. This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , M u s s e l s h e l l County, Hon. Nat A l l e n , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . The judgment denied r e l i e f i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f s S t a n l e y and LuElla Horacek, husband and w i f e , and q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n d e f e n d a n t s William and Velma Hudson, husband and w i f e . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a long r e c i t a l of f a c t s l e a d i n g back t o t h e a n t e c e d e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s through whom each c l a i m s t i t l e t o the property i n question. Two l o t s a r e i n v o l v e d , Lots 9 and 1 0 , Block 3, O r i g i n a l Townsite of F a r r a l l , an o l d s u b d i v i s i o n s o u t h of Roundup, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m t i t l e through one Leo Sedlacek who purchased and r e s i d e d on Lots 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8 , Block 3 of t h e subd i v i s i o n and which a b u t t h e l o t s involved h e r e , Lots 9 and 10. Record t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 was h e l d by Dominic Vescovi and h i s wife, Jennie. J e n n i e Vescovi Defendants c l a i m t i t l e through Dominic and . Here, t h e c o n t r o l l i n g q u e s t i o n i s - - - i s t h e r e evidence t o s u p p o r t p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m t h a t Leo Sedlacek a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o t h e l o t s from Dominic and J e n n i e Vescovi through a d v e r s e possession? The p r o p e r t y was a t a l l times a s s e s s e d t o Dominic and J e n n i e Vescovi and t h e t a x n o t i c e s were addressed t o them, i n c a r e of Sedlacek. number of y e a r s . Sedlacek paid t h e t a x e s f o r t h e r e q u i r e d However, d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t t h i s was t h e agreed l e a s e payment f o r t h e use of t h e land t o grow garden products. P l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r c h a l l e n g e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t Sedlacek had n o t a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 through a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , maintain s d l a c e k ' s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y met a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of Montana law t o e s t a b l i s h a d v e r s e possession. P l a i n t i f f s p o i n t out t h e r e i s no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e t h a t Sedlacek a c t u a l l y and continuously occupied t h e land i n question f o r a t l e a s t f i f t e e n years p r i o r t o h i s death. 93-2510, R.C.M. 1947. Section P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a s s e r t Sedlacek enclosed t h e land i n q u e s t i o n w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l e n c l o s u r e and c u l t i v a t e d i t a n n u a l l y by p r e p a r i n g and growing h i s t r u c k garden. 93-2511, R.C.M. taxes. 1947. Section F u r t h e r , Sedlacek paid a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y S e c t i o n 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f s argue t h e r e has been no proof t h a t a l a n d l o r d t e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e v e r e x i s t e d except f o r hearsay testimony from one of d e f e n d a n t s f w i t n e s s e s , admitted over o b j e c t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ; t h a t t h e continuous, unexplained and u n i n t e r r u p t e d u s e of t h e land i s s u f f i c i e n t l y adverse t o s u s t a i n t h e i r claim. P l a i n t i f f s presented w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d Leo Sedlacek l e a s e d a p o r t i o n of Lots 9 and 10 t o them d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e . They f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t s e d l a c e k f s l e a s i n g of t h e land and u l t i m a t e l y h i s conveying t h e land a r e c l e a r unequivocal a c t s m a n i f e s t i n g an i n t e n t t o d i s p o s s e s s t h e p r i o r owner. F i n a l l y , p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t Brown v. C a r t w r i g h t , 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 684, s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of adverse possession i s one of i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s t o be discovered from a l l t h e circumstances. Further, t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t i t l e by adverse p o s s e s s i o n . I n support they c i t e Wilson v. Chestnut, 164 Mont. 484, 525 P.2d 24, 31 %.Rep. 606, a s a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e burden r e s t s on defendants. Here, t h e l e g a l t i t l e a t a l l times d u r i n g t h e a l l e g e d adverse possession was i n Dominic Vescovi and h i s w i f e , J e n n i e . Under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 93-2507, R.C.M. 1947, occupation of p r o p e r t y by any person o t h e r than t h e l e g a l t i t l e h o l d e r i s deemed t o have been under and i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n t o t h e l e g a l t i t l e . Where d e f e n d a n t s , a s h e r e , show t h e y a r e s u c c e s s o r s t o t h e owner o f t h e l e g a l t i t l e , t h e y have made a prima f a c i e c a s e on t h e i r c r o s s c l a i m and t h e burden i s t h e n c a s t upon p l a i n t i f f s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r adverse possession. Smith v . Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 74 P.2d 450. The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a t t h e v e r y b e s t i s i n c o n f l i c t a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e matter o f h o s t i l e p o s s e s s i o n by p l a i n t i f f s . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h i s Court w i l l view t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and uphold i t s f i n d i n g u n l e s s t h e evidence preponderates a g a i n s t t h e defendants. Johnson v. S i l v e r Bow County, 1 5 1 Mont. 283, 443 P.2d 6. W do n o t d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e i n Brown, r e l i e d on e by p l a i n t i f f s , however, a c a s u a l r e a d i n g o f Brown d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e f a c t s t h e r e a r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i n s t a n t case. I n Wilson, c i t e d by p l a i n t i f f s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e burden with o f p r o o f r e s t s on d e f e n d a n t s , t h i s Court was d e a l i n g / a n a l l e g e d p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t t o u s e a n easement and was d e t e r m i n i n g where t h e burden o f p r o o f might b e from t i m e t o time i n such a c a s e . There i s n o t h i n g i n Wilson t h a t c a n b e c o n s t r u e d t o h o l d t h a t t h e burden o f p r o v i n g h i s own t i t l e d o e s n o t f a l l f i r s t t o any c l a i m a n t . Lunceford v . Trenk, 163 Mont. 504, 518 P.2d 266, q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n Wilson. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and r e v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , w e f i n d i t does n o t p r e p o n d e r a t e w i t h any c l a r i t y a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s . The judgment i s a f f i r m e d . /' J u s t i c e W concur: e 1 . A$;-.- - - / A, ,/$ L /* < - e LP--\ ---------,,f---------------- Chief 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.