SCHULZ v PEAKE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14212 IN THE SUP- COUIiT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1978 ARNOLD H. SCHULZ MINNIE B. SCHULZ , husband and wife, and FXlBDV L. SCHULZ, Plaintiffs and Appellants, FRED J. PEAKE and ANNA MAE PEAKE, husband and wife, Defendants and Respondents. +peal frm: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District, Honorable Jack Shanstram, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Landoe, Gary and Planalp, Bozes~n, bbntana For Respondents: , S k i r a T f i r \ l u r p n y , e ~ ,?&mtam Suhnitted on briefs: Decided: August 2, 1978 PUG 2 1378 --f 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. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l i n a damage a c t i o n f o r a l l e g e d f r a u d u l e n t r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e s a l e of a m o t e l . In a n o n j u r y c a s e , t h e c o u r t found f o r d e f e n d a n t s and p l a i n t i f f s appeal. P l a i n t i f f s - a p p e l l a n t s a r e Arnold and Minnie S c h u l z , husband and w i f e , and t h e i r son R o b e r t S c h u l z . The f a m i l y had o p e r a t e d a d r i v e - i n r e s t a u r a n t i n E l k t o n , Oregon, b e f o r e coming t o G a r d i n e r , Montana. While l i v i n g a t E l k t o n , t h e y formed a f r i e n d s h i p w i t h L u i s Dohnalek who l a t e r moved t o Gardiner. Through Dohnalek t h e y became i n t e r e s t e d i n and l a t e r bought t h e N o r t h g a t e Motel i n G a r d i n e r . While l i v i n g i n G a r d i n e r , Dohnalek became a c q u a i n t e d with defendants-respondents, Fred and Annamae Peake. He l e a r n e d t h e y were i n t e r e s t e d i n s e l l i n g t h e m o t e l and Annamae Peake o f f e r e d him $500 f i n d e r s f e e i f h e c o u l d f i n d a buyer. A t that time, t h e y were i n t e r e s t e d . he wrote a p p e l l a n t s t o f i n d o u t i f They c o n t a c t e d Dohnalek and r e s p o n - d e n t s , who confirmed t h e i r i n t e r e s t i n s e l l i n g . Minnie S c h u l z t e s t i f i e d t h a t Peake t o l d them t h a t i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e motel, t h e r e w e r e 13 a c r e s a t t h e s i t e . That f i g u r e w a s d e n i e d by t h e Peakes. I n May, 1973, Arnold and R o b e r t S c h u l z went t o G a r d i n e r , s t a y e d a t t h e m o t e l and s p e n t t h r e e d a y s i n s p e c t i n g t h e motel and t h e surrounding premises. They walked the grounds and i n s p e c t e d most, i f n o t a l l , o f t h e m o t e l u n i t s . During t h i s v i s i t , t h e y were informed by r e s p o n d e n t s t h a t c e r t a i n of t h e u n i t s w e r e n o t h a b i t a b l e d u r i n g t h e w i n t e r w h i l e o t h e r s c o u l d be o c c u p i e d a l l y e a r . On May 1 0 , 1973, a p p e l - l a n t s a g r e e d t o p u r c h a s e t h e m o t e l and made a $1,000 e a r n e s t payment. A p p e l l a n t R o b e r t S c h u l z p r e p a r e d t h e memorandum of t h e agreement which was s i g n e d by R o b e r t and Arnold, and Arnold a l s o s i g n e d h i s w i f e ' s name. They t h e n r e t u r n e d t o Oregon t o t r y and s e l l t h e i r b u s i n e s s a t E l k t o n . On J u l y 1 3 , 1973, Dohnalek w r o t e t o a p p e l l a n t s conA t t h a t t i m e he cerning c e r t a i n d e t a i l s about t h e motel. t o l d them i f t h e y d i d n o t d e c i d e t o buy t h e m o t e l t h a t h e , Dohnalek, was i n t e r e s t e d i n buying i t . H e a l s o t o l d appel- l a n t s t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s would r e f u n d t h e e a r n e s t money payment i f t h e y d i d n o t p u r c h a s e t h e m o t e l . Either i n the July 1 3 l e t t e r o r a n e a r l i e r l e t t e r , Dohnalek a t t a c h e d a s k e t c h of t h e motel area. E a r l y i n September, 1973, Arnold and R o b e r t r e t u r n e d t o G a r d i n e r , moved i n t o t h e m o t e l and s p e n t some 20 d a y s t h e r e p r i o r t o e x e c u t i n g a c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e of t h e m o t e l . During t h i s p e r i o d t h e y a g a i n i n s p e c t e d t h e u n i t s , t a l k e d t o l o c a l p e o p l e and g e n e r a l l y e d u c a t e d t h e m s e l v e s a b o u t t h e b u s i n e s s and i t s problems. Three d a y s b e f o r e t h e c o n t r a c t w a s s i g n e d Minnie S c h u l z came from Oregon t o l o o k a t t h e p r o p e r t y . The p a r t i e s s i g n e d a c o n t r a c t f o r deed which a c c u r a t e l y d e s c r i b e d t h e p r o p e r t y p u r c h a s e d and s a i d cont r a c t was p l a c e d i n escrow. Approximately a y e a r a f t e r t h e p u r c h a s e , a p p e l l a n t s had a c o n t r o v e r s y w i t h a n e i g h b o r o v e r a boundary l i n e . They had t h e i r a r e a s u r v e y e d and it r e s u l t e d w i t h t h e f a c t t h e y owned a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1 . 3 a c r e s of u s e a b l e l a n d i n s t e a d of 1 3 acres. They t h e n b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n f o r damages a l l e g i n g f o u r s p e c i f i c m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found no m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and no f r a u d . Four i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : 1. W a s L u i s Dohnalek a n a g e n t f o r F r e d Peake? 2. Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n i t s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s h o l d i n g t h a t t h e "Complete I n v e s t i g a t i o n " c l a u s e i n s u l a t e s s e l l e r s from f r a u d ? 3. Did t h e c o u r t err i n i t s f a i l u r e t o f i n d t h a t s e l l e r s misrepresented t h e acreage t o t h e buyers? 4 . Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o f i n d s e l l e r s m i s - r e p r e s e n t e d t h e h e a t i n g system? A p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h e c o u r t r u l e d Dohnalek was n o t a n a g e n t b e c a u s e o f t h e f r i e n d s h i p between Dohnalek and t h e parties. The r e c o r d d o e s n o t s u s t a i n t h a t argument. The c o u r t found t h a t p r i o r t o May, 1973, Minnie S c h u l z had c o n t a c t e d Dohnalek a s k i n g him t o l o c a t e a b u s i n e s s i n Gardiner. Dohnalek f i r s t s u g g e s t e d t h e y p u r c h a s e a g r o c e r y s t o r e i n Gardiner, b u t a p p e l l a n t s w e r e n o t i n t e r e s t e d . It was l a t e r h e l e a r n e d r e s p o n d e n t s were i n t e r e s t e d i n s e l l i n g and w r o t e t o a p p e l l a n t s a b o u t t h e m o t e l . To have found Dohnalek a n a g e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t would have t o have found h e came w i t h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g two s t a t u t e s and o u r c a s e s i n t e r p r e t i n g t h o s e statutes. S e c t i o n 2-101, R.C.M. 1947, d e f i n e s agency: "Agency d e f i n e d . An a g e n t i s o n e who r e p r e s e n t s another, c a l l e d t h e principal, i n dealings with t h i r d persons. such-representation is called agency. " S e c t i o n 2-103, R.C.M. 1947, d i s t i n g u i s h e s between s p e c i a l and g e n e r a l a g e n t s : "Agents, g e n e r a l o r s p e c i a l . An a g e n t f o r a p a r t i c u l a r a c t o r t r a n s a c t i o n i s c a l l e d a spec i a l agent. A l l other a r e general agents." A p e r s o n d e a l i n g w i t h a s p e c i a l a g e n t i s bound a t h i s p e r i l t o a s c e r t a i n t h e s c o p e of t h e a g e n t ' s a u t h o r i t y . Moore v . S k y l e s ( 1 9 0 5 ) , 33 Mont. 135, 1 3 8 , 82 P . 799; S c h a e f f e r v . Mutual B e n e f i t L i f e I n s . Co. ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 38 Mont. 459, 465, 100 P. 225; Northwestern E l e c t r i c Equipment Co. v . L e i g h t o n et al. ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 66 Mont. C e n t r a l L i f e I n s . Co. S e c t i o n s 2-104, 529, 213 P . 1094; Benema v . Union ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 94 Mont. 1 3 8 , 1 4 7 , 21 P.2d 69. 2-105, and 2-106, 1947, d e f i n e R.C.M. a c t u a l and o s t e n s i b l e a g e n c i e s : "2-104. Agency, a c t u a l o r o s t e n s i b l e . An agency i s e i t h e r a c t u a l ostensible. or "2-105. A c t u a l agency. A agency i s a c t u a l n when t h e a g e n t i s r e a l l y employed by t h e principal. "2-106. O s t e n s i b l e agency. An agency i s o s t e n s i b l e when t h e p r i n c i p a l i n t e n t i o n a l l y , o r by want o f o r d i n a r y c a r e , c a u s e s a t h i r d p e r s o n t o b e l i e v e a n o t h e r t o b e h i s a g e n t who i s n o t r e a l l y employed by him." I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t t o n o t e t h e r e i s n o t o n e s h r e d of t e s t i m o n y , n o r any a l l e g a t i o n t h a t L u i s Dohnalek o r Fred Peake e v e r r e p r e s e n t e d t h a t Dohnalek was P e a k e ' s a g e n t . All n e g o t i a t i o n s were a d m i t t e d l y conducted between a p p e l l a n t s and r e s p o n d e n t s . Dohnalek was merely t h e c o n d u i t t h r o u g h which i n f o r m a t i o n was t r a n s m i t t e d t o a p p e l l a n t s . Some of t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n was p r o v i d e d by Peake, o t h e r i n f o r m a t i o n g a t h e r e d by Dohnalek h i m s e l f , and some by t h i r d p a r t i e s t h r o u g h Dohnalek. But a l l of such i n f o r m a t i o n was g a t h e r e d by Dohnalek a s a f r i e n d o f a p p e l l a n t s , a t t h e i r s p e c i a l i n s t a n c e and r e q u e s t , and n o t a s t h e a g e n t of Peake. I n t h e o l d c a s e of H a r t t v. Jahn e t a l . ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 59 Mont. 173, 1 8 1 , 196 P. 1 5 3 , t h e C o u r t , i n i n t e r p r e t i n g s e c t i o n 2-216, R.C.M. 1947 ( t h e n S e c t i o n 5424 Revised Codes 1907), said: " * * * I t must be remembered t h a t t h e s u b j e c t m a t t e r i s r e a l e s t a t e , and t h a t any c o n t r a c t c o n f e r r i n g upon a n a g e n t o r b r o k e r t h e a u t h o r i t y t o make a s a l e o r t o c o n t r a c t t o make s a l e of r e a l e s t a t e must b e i n w r i t i n g . * * * A s t h e s t a t u t e s now r e a d , any b i n d i n g a u t h o r i t y g i v e n t o a n a g e n t t o c o n t r a c t t o s e l l l a n d must be i n writing. Inasmuch a s t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e a g e n t must b e i n w r i t i n g , h e c a n have no more a u t h o r i t y t h a n i s v e s t e d i n him by t h e w r i t i n g . " The burden of proof was on a p p e l l a n t s t o p r o v e t h e i r c l a i m . C e r t a i n l y , i f t h e agency r e l a t i o n s h i p i s contended t o be m a t e r i a l , a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o s u s t a i n t h e burden of proof i n e s t a b l i s h i n g a n agency. S e e F e d e r a l Land Bank of Spokane v . Myhre ( 1 9 4 0 ) , 1 1 0 Mont. 416, 1 0 1 P.2d 1017. Under t h e law o f t h e s e c a s e s , t h e c o u r t found, a s w e must, t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e w a s i n s u f f i c i e n t t o make o u t a prima f a c i e c a s e o f agency. A s t o any o r a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n s a l l e g e d , s e c t i o n 2-116, R.c.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s : "Form of a u t h o r i t y . An o r a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n i s s u f f i c i e n t f o r any p u r p o s e , e x c e p t t h a t a n authority t o enter i n t o a contract required by law t o be i n w r i t i n g c a n o n l y b e g i v e n an instrument i n writing." T h i s s e c t i o n was i n t e r p r e t e d ( a s S e c t i o n 7939, Revised Codes of Montana 1921) i n H a r t t v . J a h n , s u p r a , a s h e r e t o f o r e quoted. Inc. I n E l e c t r i c a l P r o d u c t s C o n s o l i d a t e d v . E l Camp ( 1 9 3 7 ) , 105 Mont. 386, 395, 73 P.2d 1 9 9 , t h e C o u r t said: "The d e c i s i v e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w by t h i s c o u r t i s whether t h e p l a i n t i f f made a c a s e upon t h e l a w and t h e f a c t s s u f f i c i e n t t o s u s t a i n t h e judgment. * * * I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t s u c h a case was n o t made; t h i s b e c a u s e t h e r e was no s u f f i c i e n t showing of t h e a u t h o r i t y of Day t o a v o i d t h e e f f e c t of t h e s t a t u t e r e q u i r i n g a n a g e n t ' s a u t h o r i t y t o be i n w r i t i n g i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h s e c t i o n 7939 * * *." Nor c a n i t b e s a i d t h a t r e s p o n d e n t s r a t i f i e d any a c t i o n of Dohnalek, b e c a u s e Dohnalek t o o k no a c t i o n . H e never claimed t o b e t h e a g e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s nor d i d h e e v e r e x e r c i s e any such a u t h o r i t y . This i s a unique e f f o r t t o make r e s p o n d e n t s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l e g e d m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of Dohnalek, who a d m i t t e d l y n e v e r c l a i m e d t o b e t h e a g e n t of r e s p o n d e n t s , n o r d i d r e s p o n d e n t s e v e r r e p r e s e n t t o anyone h e was t h e i r a g e n t . N e i t h e r c a n s e c t i o n 2-117, 1947, R.C.M. c o n c e r n i n g r a t i f i c a t i o n add any s t r e n g t h t o a p p e l l a n t s ' a l r e a d y weak p o s i t i o n . This s e c t i o n provides: " R a t i f i c a t i o n of a g e n t ' s - A r a t i f i c a t i o n act. c a n b e made o n 5 i n t h e manner t h a t would have been n e c e s s a r y t o c o n f e r a n o r i g i n a l a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e a c t r a t i f i e d , o r where a n o r a l a u t h o r i z a t i o n would s u f f i c e , by a c c e p t i n g o r r e s t r a i n i n g t h e b e n e f i t of t h e a c t , w i t h n o t i c e t h e r e o f . " W e f i n d no e r r o r a s t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e . The second i s s u e c o n c e r n s t h e c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g and c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a p p e l l a n t s r e l i e d on t h e i r own i n s p e c t i o n of t h e m o t e l and t h e r e f o r e r e s p o n d e n t s were n o t l i a b l e . P a r a g r a p h 1 4 of t h e c o n t r a c t r e a d s : "Examination of P r o p e r t y . The p u r c h a s e r s d e c l a r e t h e y a r e p u r c h a s i n g s a i d p r o p e r t y on t h e i r own e x a m i n a t i o n and judgment and n o t t h r o u g h any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o them made by t h e s e l l e r s , o r t h e i r agents, a s t o i t s location, value, future v a l u e , income t h e r e f r o m o r a s t o i t s p r o d u c t i o n . " I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e c o n t r a c t , w e look t o t h e s t a t u t o r y g u i d e l i n e s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n 13-702, R.C.M. 1947: "Contracts--how t o b e i n t e r p r e t e d . A c o n t r a c t must be s o i n t e r p r e t e d a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e mutual i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s as i t e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e of c o n t r a c t i n g , s o f a r as t h e same i s a s c e r t a i n a b l e and l a w f u l . " H e r e , t h e l a n g u a g e i s c l e a r and unambiguous. So b e i n g , i t needs no c o n s t r u c t i o n and i t i s t h e c o u r t ' s d u t y t o e n f o r c e i t a s made by t h e p a r t i e s . B u l l a r d v . Smith ( 1 9 0 3 ) , 28 Mont. 387, 72 P . 761; Frank e t a l . v . B u t t e Mining & Lumber Co. & Boulder ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 48 Mont. 83, 1 3 5 P . 904; Thompson v . Thompson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 447, 554 P.2d 1 1 ; D a n i e l s o n 1 1 v . D a n i e l s o n (19771, Mont . , 560 P.2d 893, 34 S t - R e p . 76. I s s u e s t h r e e and f o u r w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r f o r t h e y c o n c e r n t h e a l l e g a t i o n s of m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a c r e a g e and t h e h e a t i n g system by r e s p o n d e n t s . We must observe at this level of review of such allegations that the trial court has the unique position of observing the witnesses, their demeanor, and then finally passing on the credibility and weight to be given such testimony. We are confined to the cold record of that testimony and recognize that it is the trial court's province to judge the credibility of the witnesses. Lewis (1978), Mont. , Davidson v. 579 P.2d 762, 35 St.Rep. 662. Here the complaint originally set forth four alleged fraudulent misrepresentations as to: (1) Acreage; ( 2 ) Concealment of a previous highway take; (3) Lack of insulation in cabins; and (4) Possible leakage in the gas line. Two of appellants exhibits, one a description of the property showing the highway take as being 1,961 feet, and the other a letter from Dohnalek telling appellants of said take, necessitated an abandonment by appellants of this allegation. The trial testimony and the depositions of appellants fell far short of supporting the complaint, a factor no doubt in the trial judge's acceptance of the credibility of appellants' testimony. All three appellants had contradicting testimony as to the insulation of the various cabins. At trial Robert testified, contra to his deposition, that Peake told him the riverside cabins, seven in number, could not be used in cold weather, but that there were eleven units that could be used. The same contradictory type of testimony was given both by deposition and at trial about the alleged gas leakage. The local propane dealer, Harold Rediske, who had serviced the cabins for years, testified there had never been a gas l e a k a t t h e motel. Over t h e y e a r s t h e y had t r o u b l e k e e p i n g t h e p i l o t l i g h t s c l e a n and o n , a problem common t o t h a t t y p e o f h e a t i n g , b u t no m a j o r l e a k . Rediske t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e m a j o r problem o f h e a t i n g t h e u n i t s was t h a t t h e r e w a s o n l y o n e t a n k t o s e r v i c e a l l u n i t s , c r e a t i n g a p r e s s u r e problem. his was s o l v e d by t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f a n o t h e r t a n k a t a c o s t o f o n l y $50 p e r y e a r . On a p p e a l a p p e l l a n t s a l l e g e a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s t o t h e h e a t i n g s y s t e m , a c h a n g e from t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t , b u t nowhere i n t h e i r t e s t i m o n y d o t h e y p r o d u c e c r e d i t a b l e testimony t o s u s t a i n t h e i r a l l e g a t i o n s . The t r i a l j u d g e q u i t e p r o p e r l y f o u n d no m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . F i n a l l y , w e c o n s i d e r t h e q u e s t i o n o f whether o r n o t t h e r e was a m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a s t o t h e a c r e a g e . Reviewing t h e f a c t s a s t o t h e a c r e a g e i n v o l v e d i n t h e p u r c h a s e , w e c a n n o t see t h a t t h e t r i a l j u d g e a b u s e d h i s d i s c r e t i o n i n f i n d i n g f o r r e s p o n d e n t s on t h e e v i d e n c e p r o duced f o r h i s c o n s i d e r a t i o n . A p p e l l a n t s t w i c e v i s i t e d t h e m o t e l s i t e b e f o r e making t h e purchase. A r n o l d and R o b e r t i n s p e c t e d i t numerous t i m e s a n d had t h e boundary l i n e s p o i n t e d o u t t o them. Most c e r t a i n l y t h e y must h a v e r e c o g n i z e d t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e between 1 . 3 a c r e s and t h e a l l e g e d 1 3 a c r e s was g r e a t and should have asked q u e s t i o n s b e f o r e t h e purchase. A p p e l l a n t R o b e r t drew up t h e e a r n e s t money a g r e e m e n t and made no m e n t i o n o f t h e a c r e a g e n o r d i d t h e c o n t r a c t s i g n e d by t h e p a r t i e s l a t e r i n t h e f a l l o f 1973. I n a very s i m i l a r c a s e , involving t h e purchase of a 1 m o t e l , W a l l e r v . Heid ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 501, 554 ~ . 2 d 3 3 1 , t h i s Court held: " W a l l e r s c o n t e n d d e f e n d a n t made t h e s e m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o i n d u c e them t o e n t e r t h e contract: (1) t h a t t h e m o t e l and r e s i d e n c e were w i n t e r i z e d and c o u l d be o p e r a t e d t h e ent i r e y e a r ; ( 2 ) t h a t t h e highway t o Yellowstone Park would b e moved and p a s s d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of t h e m o t e l ; ( 3 ) t h a t t h e plumbing and w i r i n g t o a second bathroom i n t h e r e s i d e n c e was roughed i n and c o u l d b e completed merely by hooking up t h e u t i l i t i e s ; and ( 4 ) t h a t t h e m o t e l ' s washer and d r y e r worked. W a l l e r s a r g u e t h e y would not have e n t e r e d -- c o n t r a c t - t h e s e m i s r e p r e into the if s e n t a t i o n s - - - made. had n o t been " I t h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e i n Montana t h a t a prima f a c i e c a s e o f f r a u d i s n o t e s t a b l i s h e d u n l e s s t h e p l a i n t i f f p r o v e s h e r e l i e d on t h e t r u t h of t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made t o him. Dunl a p v. Nelson, 165 Mont. 291, 296, 529 P.2d 1394; Clough v . J a c k s o n , 156 Mont. 272, 279, 479 P.2d 266; Young v . Handrow, 1 5 1 Mont. 310, The d i s t r i c t c o u r t found t h a t 315, 443 P.2d 9. W a l l e r s r e l i e d on t h e i r own i n v e s t i g a t i o n s of t h e p r o p e r t y and t h o s e of Gary Teaney, r a t h e r t h a n r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by d e f e n d a n t . In Cowan v . Westland R e a l t y Co., 162 Mont. 379, 383, 512 P.2d 714, t h i s C o u r t s a i d : " ' T h i s C o u r t h a s s t a t e d many t i m e s t h a t i t s f u n c t i o n on a p p e a l i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . This Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t unless t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e a g a i n s t such findings. [Citing c a s e s . ] ' " I t i s undisputed t h a t Wallers v i s i t e d W e s t Yellowstone t w i c e and p e r s o n a l l y examined t h e m o t e l and r e s i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e bathroom and l a u n d r y room. Of p a r t i c u l a r s i g n i f i c a n c e i s t h e f a c t they hired an agent with s u b s t a n t i a l r e a l estate experience t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e property and make recommendations on t h e p u r c h a s e . W a l l e r s p a i d Gary Teaney $5,000 f o r h i s s e r v i c e s . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t c o u l d p r o p e r l y f i n d from t h i s e v i d e n c e t h a t no r e l i a n c e was p l a c e d on any r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s made by d e f e n d a n t . Without r e l i a n c e t h e r e was no c a u s e o f a c t i o n f o r f r a u d . " 170 Mont. at 502-03. (Emphasis added.) A t no t i m e d u r i n g t r i a l d i d a p p e l l a n t s s a y t h e y would n o t have purchased t h e m o t e l had t h e y been aware of t h e f a c t t h e r e was l e s s t h a n 1 3 a c r e s . t h o u g h t more a b o u t i t . They s a i d t h e y would have Then, o v e r a y e a r l a t e r , a f t e r making t h e payments and c o n t i n u i n g t o make payments, t h e y brought this action for $25,000 damages--not for recission of the contract. We held in Anderson v. Applebury (1977), - Mont .- I 567 P.2d 951, 954, 34 St.Rep. 842: "It is well settled that a prima facie case of fraud is not established unless plaintiff proves the making of a material misrepresentation, and reliance -- truth ---misupon the of such re~resentation. (Citincr cases.)" (Emphasis adhed. ) Applying our holding to this case, we note appellants had at least three opportunities to avoid this sale after inspecting it. Under these facts we cannot find the makings of material representations nor the reliance upon same by appellants. The District Court judgment is affirmed. We Concur: Cj %A$Justice %'P&Q* CMef

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.