MARTIN v RANDONO

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13349 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F W. D. e t ux. (DON) MARTIN, , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, GENE R N O O e t ux. A D N , PRODUCTS INC. and GREAT FALLS FOREST Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s . D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable P e t e r G . Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Appeal from: Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t s : S t i m a t z and E n g e l , B u t t e , Montana J o s e p h E n g e l , I11 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana For Respondents: K n i g h t , Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montana Conde F. Mackay a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: ,JAB 2 f ? 't!j'fe March 1 7 , 1977 Jm 10 1978 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Lewis and Clark County, decreeing t h a t p l a i n t i f f W. D . (Don) Martin, e t ux. (Martins) were e n t i t l e d t o 22 a c r e s of land by v i r t u e of adverse possession under claim of t i t l e . The land involved i s located seven miles e a s t of Lincoln, Montana. It c o n s i s t s of 22 a c r e s of wooded f o r e s t land. A saw- m i l l was l o c a t e d on t h e property along with s e v e r a l o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s and was operated by the Pappin Construction Co. u n t i l 1964. Don Martin was employed by Pappin a s t h e foreman of t h e sawing crew. Since 1959, Martin a l s o maintained h i s family residence, a mobile home, p a r t i a l l y on t h e land i n d i s pute. I n 1964, t h e Great F a l l s F o r e s t Products, I n c . , ( a Randono family owned corporation) acqbired t h e land and a l s o took over t h e logging and sawmill operations. The family corpora- t i o n r e t a i n e d employees from t h e Pappin Construction Co., i n cluding Don Martin. The art ins' t r a i l e r home stayed i n t h e same place. I n t h e spring 1965 t h e Great F a l l s F o r e s t Products, Inc. f i n i s h i n g m i l l burned down and went out of b u s i n e s s ; a s a r e s u l t very s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e logging and sawmill operation a t Lincoln terminated. I t i s c l e a r t h a t up t o t h i s point Martins acknowledge they were on t h e land involved with t h e permission of t h e Randono family corporation. Don Martin t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n l a t e 1965 o r e a r l y 1971 he talked with Gene Randono, t h e p r e s i d e n t of t h e family corporation, and Randono asked him t o pay $50 per month r e n t a s a condition t o remaining on t h e property with h i s t r a i l e r home. This testimony was given a t t h e t r i a l : "Q.* * * Mr. Martin, a f t e r t h e termination of t h e operation of t h e m i l l by Gray, d i d anything take p l a c e between you and any member of t h e Defendant corporation r e l a t i v e t o your presence on t h e premises? "A. Yes. I talked t o Gene Randono. He informed m e t h a t i f I was going t o remain on t h e property I would pay $50 a month r e n t . I informed him I would n o t . I considered t h e ground a s mine .I1 I n i t s f i n d i n g s t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d on t h i s statement exclusively a s being a s u f f i c i e n t d e c l a r a t i o n of i n t e n t t o adversely possess t h e property. On t h e o t h e r hand, W. A . Randono, t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n t of t h e family corporation (who a t t h e time of t h e a l l e g e d statement was only 17 o r 18 years of age) t e s t i f i e d t h a t Gene Randono o r a l l y permitted Martin t o keep h i s t r a i l e r on t h e land i n exchange f o r M a r t i n ' s s e r v i c e s a s a watchman over t h e property and t h e s t r u c t u r e s located on t h e property. I n any e v e n t , Gene Randono and h i s wife C a r r o l , both defendants i n t h i s a c t i o n , l e f t soon t h e r e a f t e r t o l i v e i n Nevada and apparently remained t h e r e . A f t e r t h e sawmill was closed Martin acknowedged t h a t f o r a s h o r t time he performed s e r v i c e s a s a watchman f o r Gene Randono. Property t a x e s assessed upon t h e property by Lewis and Clark County f e l l delinquent f o r t h e years 1964 through 1970. The property was s t r u c k o f f t o t h e county. I n January 1971 Don Martin and J . P. Mulcare (not a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n ) paid $2,670.14 t o t h e Lewis and Clark County Treasurer and received a c e r t i f i c a t e of assignment f o r t h e delinquent t a x e s . Martin and Mulcare together had been involved i n previous property a c q u i s i t i o n s . L a t e r , Martin paid Mulcare's one-half of t h e t a x assignment and Mulcare delived a q u i t claim deed t o Martin. During d i r e c t examination a t t r i a l Don Martin was asked why he d i d n o t pay t h e taxes each year a s they accrued. He answered: A . I didn' t want t o a l e r t them [ t h e Randonos] t o t h e f a c t . I figured they should know i f t h e taxes were due. They should be paid. I f they weren't paid, I wanted i t l e f t q u i e t and when f i v e years was up I figured I would take it." A f t e r t h e sawmill closed Don Martin and h i s son Frank had a conversation concerning where Don Martin was going t o live. T e s t i f y i n g f o r h i s f a t h e r , Frank r e p l i e d t o a question on d i r e c t examination concerning whether Don Martin ever t o l d Frank he was attempting t o o b t a i n ownership of the property: "A. Well, when I asked him where he was going t o l i v e , he s a i d he was going t o s t a y t h e r e and s e e i f he c o u l d n ' t g e t it f o r back taxes l a t e r on i n t h e f u t u r e sometime ." During t h e summer 1971, a f t e r Don Martin had taken t h e t a x assignment, a cabin which was approximately 150 f e e t from t h e Martin t r a i l e r home, mysteriously burned t o t h e ground. O May 31, 1972, t h e family corporation redeemed t h e t a x n assignment by paying $2,956.83 t o t h e Lewis and Clark County Treasurer. The county t r e a s u r e r s e n t a refund t o Don Martin b u t apparently Martin refused t o cash t h e check, claiming t h e land belonged t o him. Presumably t h e county t r e a s u r e r s t i l l holds t h e money i n t r u s t f o r Martin. Soon a f t e r t h i s redemption t h e family corporation t r i e d t o s e l l t h e land t o a Missoula land s p e c u l a t o r , b u t they were accosted by Martin who claimed t h e land belonged t o him and ordered them o f f t h e land. The t o t a l acreage of t h e land involved was approximately 22 a c r e s and t h e r e was a standing fence on one s i d e only. The only p o r t i o n enclosed was around t h e Martin t r a i l e r home. The Martins d i d n o t put t h e e n t i r e 22 a c r e s t o t h e i r own use by e i t h e r c u l t i v a t i n g t h e land o r enclosing i t . They did however, occasionally p a s t u r e a few t e t h e r e d horses on t h e land. To f a c i l i t a t e access t o t h e i r t r a i l e r home t h e Martins b u i l t a driveway. They a l s o cleaned up p a r t of t h e property by r e - moving c a r bodies and dead t r e e s . remained unimproved. Other than t h i s t h e land There was s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r i o r a t i o n t o t h e b u i l d i n g s on t h e land and t o t h e fence. I t i s undisputed t h a t W. A . Randono came f r e q u e n t l y t o t h e land during t h e years involved and e s p e c i a l l y during t h e summer and on weekends. Frequently he would bring h i s b r o t h e r s and f r i e n d s with him from t h e University of Montana. wife a l s o came t o t h e property on many occasions. Later h i s Frequently they h e l d p a r t i e s i n t h e cabin and on one occasion i n 1969, t h i s i r r i t a t e d t h e Martins t o t h e e x t e n t they c a l l e d t h e s h e r i f f and had him come t o check out t h e s i t u a t i o n . The deputy t e s t i - f i e d a s t o h i s reason f o r m i n g t o t h e cabin: "A. One n i g h t I received a c a l l from M r . Martin t h a t t h e r e were people i n a cabin very c l o s e t o h i s property who were apparently moving i n . They were having p a r t i e s and a l o t of n o i s e and he r e quested t h a t something be done about i t s o he could g e t h i s s l e e p a t night." A f t e r t a l k i n g t o t h e occupants of t h e cabin, t h e s h e r i f f returned t o Don Martin and reported t h i s conversation: ** "A. He [W .A. Randono] s a i d t h e r e was no problem t h a t t h e cabin belonged t o h i s uncle [Gene Randono]. So I have no way of determining proof of ownership of property, so a t t h a t point I returned t o M r . Martin and t o l d him what I found out and i f anything was t o proceed from t h e r e , i t would probably have t o be a c i v i l s u i t . " During t h i s e n t i r e period t h e Martins admitted t h e Randonos and t h e i r f r i e n d s used t h e cabin and stayed t h e r e f o r v a r i o u s periods of time. While t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p was n o t always t h e b e s t between t h e Martins and t h e young Randonos, Martins n e v e r d i r e c t l y t o l d t h e Randonos t h e y owned t h e l a n d and must g e t permission t o use t h e l a n d and s t a y i n t h e c a b i n s . During d i r e c t examination Don Martin a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had no o b j e c t i o n t o Randono and h i s f r i e n d s s t a y i n g a t t h e c a b i n and t h a t he allowed them t o s t a y t h e r e because: *** "A. I f i g u r e d it e a s i e r t o n o t s t i r them up and cause problems and I d i d n ' t want t o a l e r t them t o t h e f a c t t h a t I had m mind up ( s i c ) I was going y t o accumulate t h i s ground." During t h e time p e r i o d involved Ralph Randono an a t t o r n e y who was a l s o a l i s t e d o f f i c e r of t h e family c o r p o r a t i o n , t e s t i f i e d h e v i s i t e d t h e l a n d involved on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s and was n e v e r t o l d by t h e M a r t i n s t h e y were c l a i m i n g t h e l a n d . He stopped i n L i n c o l n on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t o s e e t h e M a r t i n s and i t was always a f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e y always had c o f f e e brewing. I n A p r i l 1971, some t h r e e months a f t e r Don Martin p a i d t h e t a x e s and had taken an assignment, Ralph Randono l i s t e d t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h S o r r e l l R e a l t y Co. of G r e a t F a l l s . He took t h e r e a l t o r on t h e l a n d , showed him t h e b o u n d a r i e s and Don Martin did nothing. L a t e r i n 1971, Ralph Randono, M r . S o r r e l l and a p r o s p e c t i v e buyer went on t h e land.. and Don Martin d i d n o t h i n g . During t h i s e n t i r e p e r i o d between 1964 and 1971 Ralph Randono knew of no s i t u a t i o n t h a t would a l a r m him t h a t anyone was s e e k i n g t h e p r o p e r t y by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . I n May 1972, W. A . Randono l e a r n e d Don Martin had t a k e n a t a x assignment on t h e l a n d , and he t h e n redeemed t h e land by paying a.11 t h e back t a x e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t and p e n a l t i e s . S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e t a x redemption, W. A . Randono and a Missoula land s p e c u l a t o r went on t h e land f o r t h e purpose of a r r a n g i n g a s a l e t o the speculator. They were t h e n c o n f r o n t e d by Don Martin who o r d e r e d them o f f t h e l a n d , claiming t h e l a n d was h i s . S e v e r a l months l a t e r Don Martin f i l e d a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n claiming adverse possession under c l a i m of t i t l e . The Randono family c o r p o r a t i o n c o u n t e r sued claiming damages f o r wrongful withholding of p r o p e r t y and damages f o r t h e l o s t s a l e t o t h e Missoula s p e c u l a t o r . The D i s t r i c t Court decreed t i t l e i n Don Martin, and t h i s a p p e a l followed. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r claim t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n decreeing adverse p o s s e s s i o n , t h e Randonos a l s o c l a i m t h e c o u r t should have g r a n t e d damages f o r wrongful. withholding of p r o p e r t y and f o r t h e l o s t s a l e . The Martins concede they would be l i a b l e f o r damages f o r wrongful withholding of p r o p e r t y were i t n o t f o r t h e d e c r e e of adverse possession. W conclude t h e Martins d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h adverse possession. e The Martins sought adverse possession under an occupancy t h a t was a d m i t t e d l y p e r m i s s i v e , b u t which they c l a i m they converted i n t o one t h a t was h o s t i l e . I n P r i c e v. Western L i f e Insurance Co. 513, (19441, 115 Mont. 509,/514, 146 P.2d 165, t h i s Court recognized t h a t one may convert a permissive p o s s e s s i o n i n t o a h o s t i l e one but "I t o make i t s o t h e r e must be a r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e permissive possession *** and t h e r e p u d i a t i o n must be brought home t o t h e owner by a c t u a l n o t i c e t o overcome * * *.'" I n P r i c e , we s t a t e d t h e burden permissive u s e , quoting w i t h approval from Lindokken v. Paulson, (1937), 224 W i s . 470, 272 N.W. 453,455, t o be: "'The law i s v e r y r i g i d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e f a c t t h a t a permissive use i n t h e beginning can be changed i n t o one which i s h o s t i l e and adverse only by t h e most unequivocal conduct on t h e p a r t of t h e u s e r . The r u l e i s t h a t t h e evidence of adverse p o s s e s s i o n must be p o s i t i v e , must be s t r i c t l y cons t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e person claiming a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t , and t h a t every reasonable intendment should be made i n favor of t h e t r u e owner. 1 1 1 Whether one i s seeking t o convert permissive possession i n t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t o r i n t o one of o u t r i g h t ownership, we s e e no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e burden t h e c l a i m a n t must b e a r . Using t h i s r u l e a s a y a r d s t k k t h e Martins have f a i l e d i n t h e i r burden. The D i s t r i c t Court i n a d d i t i o n t o concluding t h a t t h e Martins had f u l f i l l e d t h e requirements of p o s s e s s i o n f o r 5 y e a r s and payment o f t a x e s , s e c t i o n 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947, held: "* * * t h a t t h e i r possession has been a c t u a l , v i s i b l e , e x c l u s i v e , h o s t i l e and continuous f o r t h e f u l l p e r i o d n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e a b a r under t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a t i o n s . 11 These requirements of s e c t i o n 93-2513 must be proven t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m of adverse possession. 374,&P. Smith v. Duff, (1909), 39 Mont. 981; Ferguson v. Standley, (1931), 89 Mont. 489, 300 P. 245; Townsend v . Koukol, (1966), 148 Mont. 1, 416 P.2d 532. To c o n v e r t t h e o r i g i n a l permissive possession i n t o one of a h o s t i l e c l a i m t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e s t a t e ment made by Martin when he claimed he r e f u s e d t o pay r e n t t o Gene Randono and considered t h e land a s h i s own. Even assuming t h i s s t a t e m e n t t o be t r u e , i t i s a t b e s t e q u i v o c a l , and c e r t a i n l y cannot be construed t o be a statement of i n t e n t t o possess and own t h e e n t i r e 22 a c r e s . The statement was: "I informed him I would n o t [pay r e n t ] . I considered t h e ground a s mine." If r e n t was requested from Martin i t could have been f o r t h e r e n t of t h e p i e c e of land on which t h e t r a i l e r home was l o c a t e d . It i s n o t c l e a r from t h i s testimony t h a t Martin a c t u a l l y made a s t a t e ment t o Gene Randono t h a t he was claiming ownership of t h e land. F u r t h e r , t h e conduct and s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e Martins from 1965 through 1971, f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e q u i s i t e elements o f adverse possession. I t appears t h e Martins were r e l y i n g more on t h e i r misconceived a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law. To them p o s s e s s i o n , p l u s u l t i m a t e l y paying t h e back t a x e s f o r f i v e y e a r s , was s u f f i c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r c l a i m t o adverse possession. n o t enough. - 8 - That i s While i t might be argued t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n was a c t u a l and v i s i b l e , and perhaps even continuous, i t was n o t e x c l u s i v e and hostile. Don M a r t i n ' s testimony demonstrates he d i d n o t o b j e c t t o t h e Randonos coming o n t o t h e l a n d , l i v i n g i n t h e c a b i n s , and g e n e r a l l y coming and going a s they pleased. H i s reason f o r n o t o b j e c t i n g b e l i e s any i n t e n t t o t a k e t h e p r o p e r t y by t r u e adverse possession. He t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t o b j e c t because he d i d n o t want t o p u t t h e Randonos on n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t t o l a t e r "accunulate t h i s ground." He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t pay t h e back t a x e s year by y e a r a s they accumulated because he d i d n o t want t o put t h e Randonos on n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t t o a c q u i r e t h e land i n t h e f u t u r e . By t h e s e admissions t h e Martins c l e a r l y f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n was e x c l u s i v e and hostile. From t h e i n c e p t i o n of t h e f i r s t c l a i m of r i g h t t o t h e land through t h e e n t i r e period r e q u i r e d f o r adverse p o s s e s s i o n , i t was r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e M a r t i n s 1 conduct be continuously h o s t i l e and e x c l u s i v e t o t h e t r u e owners. Here, t h e p o s s e s s i o n was purposely n o n h o s t i l e and nonexclusive. I t i s axiomatic t h a t adverse possession does n o t allow t h e p o s s e s s o r s t o mask t h e i r conduct and a c q u i r e t h e land by h i d i n g t h e i r t r u e i n t e n t i o n s from t h e owners of record. Adverse possession under claim of t i t l e i s l i m i t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y by s e c t i o n s 93-2510 and 93-2511, R.C.M. 1947. The t r i a l c o u r t i n making i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions d i d n o t determine i f t h e s e s t a t u t e s had been f u l f i l l e d . S e c t i o n 93-2510 provides t h a t i f t h e c l a i m i s n o t under a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , judgment, o r d e c r e e "* ** t h e land s o a c t u a l l y occupied, and no o t h e r , i s deemed t o have been h e l d adversely." The companion s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 93-2511, f u r t h e r l i m i t s adverse p o s s e s s i o n by providing t h a t where t h e c l a i m i s n o t under a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , judgment, o r d e c r e e land i s deemed t o have been possessed and occupied i n t h e following c a s e s only: "1. Where i t has been p r o t e c t e d by a s u b s t a n t i a l inclosure; "2. Where i t h a s been u s u a l l y c u l t i v a t e d o r improved ." Here, i t appears t h e land a t one time was surrounded by a fence on a l l s i d e s . However, d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e a l l e g e d adverse p o s s e s s i o n , t h e fence and o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s on t h e p r o p e r t y deteriorated significantly. A t t h e end of t h e a l l e g e d p r e s c r i p - t i v e period a fence e x i s t e d only on one>si.de of t h e p r o p e r t y . One of t h e c a b i n s was destroyed by f i r e and t h e o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s were damaged by v a n d a l s , and t h i e v e s c a r r i e d o f f much of t h e personal property within the buildings. The land was never c u l t i v a t e d and t h e a l l e g e d improvements c o n s i s t e d of moving s i x o r more c a r bodies ( i t was never e s t a b l i s h e d who owned t h e c a r b o d i e s ) ; c u t t i n g and removing o f dead t r e e s n e a r t h e t r a i l e r home; b u i l d i n g a driveway f o r e a s i e r a c c e s s t o t h e t r a i l e r home; and, i n g e n e r a l , c l e a n i n g up t h e p l a c e . Suffice i t t o s a y , t h i s evidence d i d n o t f u l f i l l t h e requirements o f the statutes. The Martins concede l i a b i l i t y f o r wrongful withholding of t h e premises, i f t h e i r claim of adverse possession i s n o t upheld. However, they maintain t h a t i n such event t h e c l a i m of damages f o r l o s t p r o f i t s was n o t proven. Because t h e t r i a l c o u r t upheld t h e c l a i m of adverse p o s s e s s i o n , i t d i d n o t make f i n d i n g s o r conclusions on e i t h e r of t h e counterclaims. Accordingly, t h e amount of damages f o r wrongful withholding must s t i l l be determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i t must a l s o e n t e r f i n d i n g s and conclusions on t h e Randonos' counterclaim of damages because of a l o s t s a l e . W r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and remand e t h i s cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s Opinion. \& d ( & & 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.