POND v LINDELL

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

80-289 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA CURTIS POND AND SHARON POND, husband and wife, Plaintiffs and Appellants, LESLIE M. LINDELL; BONNIE LINDELL, et al., Defendants-Cross Defendants and Respondents, C. K. EENSON Appeal from: District Court of the Thirtee~thJudicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Moulton, Bellingham, Longo Montana & Mather, Billings, For Respondents: Kammerer and Rodli', Missoula ; Montana Submitted on Bri'efs: Dec2dedr Filed; AUG 11 1981 April 1 5 1 1 9 8 1 August 11, 1981 J u s t i c e Frank B. Morrison, J r . , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court Mr. . his s u i t was commenced by p l a i n t i f f s C u r t i s and Sharon Pond f o r s p e c i f i c performance of a c o n t r a c t f o r deed and f o r damages caused by d e l a y i n conveyance. Defendants Dick S. Dye and P a t r i c i a L. Dye f i l e d an answer t o t h e c o m p l a i n t . Benson answered and f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r Defendant C.K. attorney fees . P l a i n t i f f s , t h e Ponds, f i l e d a motion f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment s e e k i n g s p e c i f i c performance of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed and a d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t d e f e n d a n t s w e r e l i a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f s f o r damages o c c a s i o n e d by d e l a y i n conveyance. Defendants Dye and Benson f i l e d c r o s s - m o t i o n s f o r summary judgment and asked f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s . On J u l y 1, 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o r d e r denying t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' motion f o r summary judgment, g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s , Dye and B e n s o n ' s motions f o r summary judgment, and awarding d e f e n d a n t s t h e i r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . From t h i s decision, p l a i n t i f f s appeal. On December 1 9 , 1980, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a s u p p l e m e n t a l o r d e r d i r e c t i n g t h e e n t r y of a f i n a l judgment a s t o t h e i s s u e s d e c i d e d i n t h e J u l y 1, 1980, o r d e r and c e r t i f y i n g t h e c a s e f o r a p p e a l p u r s u a n t t o Rule 5 4 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P. T h i s c o n t r o v e r s y a r i s e s o u t of a s e r i e s of r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g numerous p a r t i e s . Because of t h e number of p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d , t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s i g n a t i o n s w i l l be u s e d ; p l a i n t i f f s C u r t i s and Sharon Pond w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "Ponds"; d e f e n d a n t s Dick S. Dye and P a t r i c i a L. Dye w i l l b e r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "Dyes"; d e f e n d a n t s L e s l i e M. L i n d e l l and Bonnie L i n d e l l w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e " ~ i n d e l l s " ; and C.K. Benson w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s S o p h i e M. e ens on". R u s s e l l o r i g i n a l l y owned t h e p r o p e r t y which i s a t t h e c e n t e r of the d i s p u t e i n t h i s a c t i o n . I n 1969, R u s s e l l e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i t h t h e Dyes. On October 27, 1971, t h e Dyes e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i t h t h e L i n d e l l s . This c o n t r a c t contained t h e following provisions: " 1 . T h a t i f t h e b u y e r s s h a l l f i r s t make t h e payments and perform t h e c o v e n a n t s h e r e i n a f t e r ment i o n e d on t h e i r p a r t t o be made and performed, t h e s e l l e r s hereby c o v e n a n t and a g r e e t o convey and a s s u r e t o t h e b u y e r s by w a r r a n t y deed i n f e e s i m p l e , f r e e and c l e a r of a l l encumbrances, t h e r e a l e s t a t e i n t h e County of Yellowstone, and S t a t e of Montana, known and d e s c r i b e d as f o l l o w s , to wit: T r a c t s K and L of t h e Second Amended P l a t of CERTIFICATE O SURVEY NO. 744, which i s l o c a t e d F i n t h e S 1 / 4 of S e c t i o n 23, Township 2 North, W Range 26 E a s t , P.M.M., Yellowstone County, Mont a n a , a c c o r d i n g t o t h e o f f i c i a l p l a t t h e r e o f on f i l e and of r e c o r d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e C l e r k and Recorder of s a i d County, under Document No. 739015. "4. The s e l l e r s a g r e e ance p o l i c y evidencing t y i s insurable i n the w i l l p l a c e t h e same i n tioned. t o provide a t i t l e insurt h a t t i t l e t o the properamount of $9,000.00 and escrow a s h e r e i n a f t e r men- " 5. Upon t h e e x e c u t i o n of t h i s agreement, t h e s e l l e r s s h a l l e x e c u t e a w a r r a n t y deed r u n n i n g t o t h e b u y e r s i n t h e u s u a l form, conveying v a l i d , mark e t a b l e , f e e simple t i t l e t o t h e premises t o t h e b u y e r s , f r e e and c l e a r of a l l l i e n s , encumbrances, and t i t l e d e f e c t s , i f a n y , b u t e x c e p t i n g r i g h t s of-way, easements, and t a x e s f o r t h e p e r i o d subs e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e of t h i s i n s t r u m e n t . . ." On May 9, 1973, t h e L i n d e l l s e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i t h t h e Ponds. That c o n t r a c t contained t h e following provisions: " T h a t if Buyers s h a l l f i r s t perform t h e c o v e n a n t s h e r e i n a f t e r mentioned on t h e i r p a r t t o be made and performed, and s h a l l make t h e payments a s h e r e i n s p e c i f i e d , t h e S e l l e r s do h e r e b y c o v e n a n t and a g r e e t o s e l l , t r a n s f e r and convey t o t h e Buyers i n f e e s i m p l e , c l e a r of a l l encumbrances w h a t e v e r , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of r e s e r v a t i o n s , r e s t r i c t i o n s and easements of r e c o r d , and a s may have been i n c u r r e d by t h e Buyers a f t e r t h e d a t e of t h i s agreement, by w a r r a n t y deed, r e a l p r o p e r t y s i t u a t e d i n t h e County of Yellowstone, S t a t e of Montana, and more p a r t i c u l a r l y described a s follows ... " I t i s u n d e r s t o o d and a g r e e d t h a t t h i s c o n t r a c t i s s u b j e c t t o t h e terms and c o n d i t i o n s of c o n t r a c t s f o r deed between Sophie M. R u s s e l l , a s S e l l e r s , and Dick S. Dye and P a t r i c i a L. Dye, d a t e d October 25, 1969; and a c o n t r a c t f o r deed d a t e d October 27, 1971 between Dick S. Dye and P a t r i c i a L . Dye, a s S e l l e r s , and L e s l i e M. L i n d e l l and Bonnie A. L i n d e l l as Buyers; t h a t s a i d c o n t r a c t s a r e h e l d i n escrow by t h e S e c u r i t y T r u s t & S a v i n g s Bank, B i l l i n g s , Montana, and t h a t t h i s c o n t r a c t s h a l l be p l a c e d i n escrow a t t h e S e c u r i t y T r u s t & S a v i n g s Bank, B i l l i n g s , Montana, and t h a t payments made under t h i s c o n t r a c t s h a l l b e a p p l i e d t o t h e payment of s a i d e a r l i e r c o n t r a c t s . "At such t i m e a s t h e Buyers s h a l l have p a i d t h e f u l l p u r c h a s e p r i c e b a l a n c e of $11,500.00, p l u s i n t e r e s t a t 8% p e r annum, a s s e t f o r t h i n t h i s c o n t r a c t f o r deed, S e l l e r s s h a l l f u r n i s h a t i t l e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y t o t h e Buyers showing good and m e r chantable t i t l e . The S e c u r i t y T r u s t & S a v i n g s Bank i s hereby a u t h o r i z e d t o pay t h e c o s t of s a i d t i t l e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y from t h e l a s t two payments t o be made under t h e t e r m s of t h i s c o n t r a c t and d e d u c t t h e same from t h e payments t o be made t o t h e S e l l e r s . " On October 24, 1973, Contemporary P r o d u c t s , I n c . , a f o r e i g n c o r p o r a t i o n which was n o t r e g i s t e r e d t o do b u s i n e s s i n Montana, r e c o r d e d a judgment a g a i n s t Dick S. Dye, i n t h e amount of $12,471.08, attorney fees. p l u s i n t e r e s t , c o s t s , and $1,149.00 i n T h i s judgment was d o c k e t e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Yellowstone County, c a s e no. 59091. On August 26, 1978, t h e Dyes a s s i g n e d t h e i r r i g h t s a s s e l l e r s under t h e Dye-Lindell c o n t r a c t t o Benson. A t this t i m e Dyes a l s o gave Benson a w a r r a n t y deed t o t h e p r o p e r t y , which was r e c o r d e d August 2 9 , 1978. Subsequent a s s i g n m e n t s of c o n t r a c t s were made by t h e L i n d e l l s and Benson. The f o l l o w i n g c h a r t , numbered chrono- l o g i c a l l y , d e p i c t s a l l of t h e above o c c u r r e n c e s and t r a n s a c t i o n s r e l a t i n g t o t h i s p a r c e l of p r o p e r t y . (See I l l u s t r a t i o n On Next Page) -- Ccntrrrpomry P r O d ~ a c Judgment aga. - 5 : L.C. ; :.e :or . $;2.4;:.C: 1 1 . a i t Cztohcr 27, ) Z. K. E?nso- 'n'arrantv 3 c e d a n l n_+&. i3i:. -_.-.. ..-LL r e c o r z e d Adj~s: 2 3 , 1578 I (Unrecorded) : a l ? ~ I e Lindell - ! Sonitr Li-deli Con:ract for Deed d l t c d !!ay 3 , 1 0 7 3 , : J o t ~ c er e c o r d e d J u n e 1 4 , 1973 C u r t i s Pond Q - Cor.trzct f o r D c ; ~ date3 C o n t r a c t As;lqnr.ent G r a T t P. ? i C o n t r a c t f o r Deed d a t e d O c t ~ t e c2 5 , 1963. D i c k S . Dye P a t r l c i a Sye cote; - S h ~ r o nP o n d Warra::? 3c.?5 Rzccrl.2 Dece.rserIi, 1973 L l o y d E. C::L? P;ck 3z:ei Leccrlcrr ;a, "it Pctersar. Tender of full payment made December 6, 1978. T h i s c o n t r o v e r s y f i r s t began i n t h e summer of 1978, when t h e Ponds n e g o t i a t e d a r e a l e s t a t e c o n s t r u c t i o n l o a n f o r t h e purpose of b u i l d i n g a home on t h e p r o p e r t y , and made p r e p a r a t i o n s t o pay t h e b a l a n c e due under t h e i r c o n t r a c t f o r deed w i t h t h e L i n d e l l s . On October 4 , 1978, t h e Ponds o b t a i n e d a t i t l e i n s u r a n c e commitment from S a f e c o T i t l e I n s u r a n c e Company of Idaho which r e f l e c t e d , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t t h e p o l i c y t o be i s s u e d would c o n t a i n a n e x c e p t i o n f o r t h e October 24, 1973, judgment e n t e r e d i n f a v o r of Contemporary P r o d u c t s , I n c . , a g a i n s t Dick S. Dye. Ponds n o t i f i e d a l l d e f e n d a n t s of t h e a l l e g e d d e f e c t i n t h e t i t l e and r e q u e s t e d t h a t t h e d e f e c t be removed s o t h a t m e r c h a n t a b l e t i t l e c o u l d be d e l i v e r e d t o t h e Ponds p u r s u a n t t o the contract t e r m s . On December 6 , 1978, t h e Ponds t e n d e r e d f u l l and f i n a l payment under t h e Pond-Lindell c o n t r a c t by d e p o s i t i n g $9,600 w i t h t h e escrow a g e n t . The f u n d s were n o t t o be p a i d u n t i l c l e a r and m e r c h a n t a b l e t i t l e was d e l i v e r e d t o t h e Ponds and a t i t l e i n s u r a n c e p o l i c y i s s u e d which would n o t i n c l u d e t h e Dye judgment a s a n e x c e p t i o n . A s u i t was f i l e d by t h e Dyes t o have t h e judgment l i e n d e c l a r e d v o i d a s a g a i n s t t h e r e a l p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n and s e e k i n g permanent i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f p r e v e n t i n g Contemporary Products, Inc., from e n f o r c i n g t h e judgment a g a i n s t t h i s r e a l property. Such a c t i o n was f i l e d by t h e Dyes on J u n e 1 2 , 1979, 17 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e by t h e Ponds. The c o u r t f i l e i n DV-79-979 reveals t h a t although t h e c o m p l a i n t was f i l e d , no summons was e v e r i s s u e d o r returned. The judgment remained a n e x c e p t i o n . On J u n e 29, 1979, t h e Ponds f i l e d t h i s s u i t f o r s p e c i f i c performance of t h e c o n t r a c t and f o r damages f o r d e l a y i n performance of t h e c o n t r a c t . The Ponds and/or S a f e c o I n s u r a n c e Company d e t e r m i n e d t h a t on October 2 4 , 1979, s i x y e a r s would have r u n on t h e Dye judgment, and i t would no l o n g e r c o n s t i t u t e a v a l i d l i e n a t t h a t time. T h e r e f o r e , t h e Ponds proceeded t o t a k e a c t i o n t o c l o s e a second c o n s t r u c t i o n l o a n which had been o b t a i n e d and t o s e c u r e t h e i n s t r u m e n t s of conveyance from t h e escrow a g e n t a f t e r October 2 4 , 1979. On October 1 2 , 1979, Benson n o t i f i e d t h e escrow a g e n t , S e c u r i t y Bank, n o t t o d e l i v e r t h e i n s t r u m e n t s of conveyance t o t h e Ponds w i t h o u t c o l l e c t i o n by t h e escrow a g e n t of t h e sum of $510 which Benson claimed a s a t t o r n e y f e e s p u r s u a n t t o c o n t r a c t f o r deed. Benson's c l a i m stemmed from t h e f a c t t h a t he had been r e q u i r e d t o o b t a i n l e g a l c o u n s e l t o d e f e n d t h e s u i t commenced by t h e Ponds under c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n which Benson claimed he had n o t been g u i l t y of a b r e a c h of c o n t r a c t . P l a i n t i f f s , t h e Ponds, t h e n assumed t h e p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e y had r i g h t f u l l y commenced t h e i r a c t i o n f o r s p e c i f i c p e r formance by r e a s o n of t h e f a i l u r e of t h e d e f e n d a n t s t o f u r n i s h t o them e v i d e n c e o f c l e a r and m e r c h a n t a b l e t i t l e and t h e y r e f u s e d t o p a y t h e $510 a t t o r n e y f e e s demanded by d e f e n d a n t Benson. The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s a r e h e r e r e s o l v e d : 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n h o l d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , t h e Ponds, were n o t e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment g r a n t i n g s p e c i f i c performance of t h e c o n t r a c t ? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n h o l d i n g d e f e n d a n t s , Dyes, and Benson were e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t err i n h o l d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s , t h e Ponds, were n o t e n t i t l e d t o damages c a u s e d by d e l a y i n conveyance o f c l e a r t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y and p e r f o r m a n c e o f the contract? T h e s e i s s u e s a r e r e s o l v e d by d e t e r m i n i n g (1) w h e t h e r t h e Ponds w e r e r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e t o p e r f o r m t h e i r p a r t o f t h e and c o n t r a c t , / ( 2 ) w h e t h e r Benson a s a s s i g n e e o f t h e Dye t o L i n d e l l c o n t r a c t c o u l d b e r e q u i r e d t o p e r f o r m t o t h e same e x t e n t a s t h e Dyes c o u l d h a v e been. F o r t h e Ponds t o be e n t i t l e d t o s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e , they must have o f f e r e d t o perform. Mont. 31, 39, 277 P. 433, 436. Hanlon v . Manger ( 1 9 2 9 ) , 85 Ponds t e n d e r e d t h e c o n t r a c t b a l a n c e o f $ 9 , 6 0 0 a s shown by t h e a f f i d a v i t o f t h e e s c r o w agent. However, t h e y d i r e c t e d t h e f u n d s n o t b e d e l i v e r e d u n t i l a t i t l e p o l i c y c o u l d b e i s s u e d showing good and m e r c h a n t a b l e title. Benson c l a i m s t h i s w a s a c o n d i t i o n a l t e n d e r . disagree. We Ponds w e r e o n l y i n s i s t i n g upon r e c e i v i n g t h a t w h i c h t h e y had a c o n t r a c t u a l r i g h t t o r e c e i v e . A t t h e same t i m e , Ponds were i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e y w e r e r e a d y , a b l e and willing t o close. (1981) Mont. Such i s s u f f i c i e n t . , Van A t t a v . S c h i l l i n g e r 625 P.2d 73, 77, 38 St.Rep. 426, 430. There can be l i t t l e doubt t h a t s p e c i f i c performance w i l l l i e a g a i n s t Benson a s a s s i g n e e of Dye. When Benson p u r c h a s e d Dyes' i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h L i n d e l l , Benson had n o t i c e t h a t L i n d e l l had s o l d t o t h e Ponds some f i v e y e a r s e a r l i e r . T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n Thompson v . ~ i n c o l n Nat. L i f e I n s . Co. ( 1 9 4 3 ) , 1 1 4 Mont. 521, 529, 138 P.2d 951, "The d o c t r i n e i s w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t when t h e v e n d o r , a f t e r e n t e r i n g i n t o a c o n t r a c t of s a l e , conveys t h e l a n d t o a t h i r d p e r s o n who h a s knowledge o r n o t i c e of t h e p r i o r agreement, such g r a n t e e t a k e s t h e l a n d impressed w i t h t h e t r u s t i n f a v o r of t h e o r i g i n a l vendee, and h o l d s i t a s t r u s t e e f o r s u c h vendee, and c a n be compelled a t t h e s u i t of t h e vendee t o speci f i c a l l y perform t h e agreement by conveying t h e l a n d i n t h e same manner, and t o t h e same e x t e n t , a s t h e vendor would have been l i a b l e t o d o , had he n o t t r a n s f e r r e d t h e l e g a l t i t l e ; and such g r a n t e e i s t h e p r o p e r d e f e n d a n t i n t h e s u i t a q a i n s t whom t o demand t h e remedy of a conveyance." ( C i t i n g Pomeroy's S p e c i f i c of Performance - C o n t r a c t s , S e c t i o n 465.1 (3d Ed. ) ... . I n Myhre v. Myhre ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 170 Mont. 4 1 0 , 419, 554 P.2d 276, t h i s C o u r t s a i d : "The r u l e seems t o b e t h a t one who a c q u i r e s o r p u r c h a s e s p r o p e r t y , knowing t h a t t h e p r o p e r t y i s s u b j e c t t o a c o n t r a c t t o be s o l d t o a n o t h e r , may be compelled t o perform t h e c o n t r a c t i n t h e same manner and t o t h e same e x t e n t a s h i s g r a n t o r would have been l i a b l e t o do had t h e g r a n t o r n o t made t h e t r a n s f e r t o him. " ( C i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d . ) The Ponds had t h r e e s e p a r a t e r i g h t s which c o u l d be enf o r c e d a g a i n s t Benson, namely (1) t h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e a deed, ( 2 ) t h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e a m e r c h a n t a b l e t i t l e , and ( 3 ) t h e r i g h t t o r e c e i v e a t i t l e p o l i c y showing c l e a r t i t l e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t a p p a r e n t l y d e n i e d r e l i e f t o t h e Ponds and g r a n t e d summary judgment t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t found t h e Contemporary P r o d u c t s ' be a l i e n on t h e p r o p e r t y . judgment n o t t o The c o u r t f e l t t h a t t h e f a c t a t i t l e i n s u r a n c e company would i n c l u d e t h e judgment a s a n .Zl-A. exception d i d n o t c r e a t e a d e f e c t rendering t h e t i t l e merchantable. W e need n o t d e c i d e whether t h e judgment c o n s t i t u t e d a v a l i d l i e n on t h e p r o p e r t y . The t r i a l c o u r t e r r e d by n o t c o n s i d e r i n g t h a t t h e r e were two s e p a r a t e c o n t r a c t u a l c o v e n a n t s i n u r i n g t o Ponds' b e n e f i t . The f i r s t c o v e n a n t w a s t o convey good t i t l e ; t h e s e c o n d was t o f u r n i s h a t i t l e p o l i c y i n s u r i n g t h a t good title. The Ponds w e r e e n t i t l e d t o h a v e e a c h c o v e n a n t p e r f o r m e d . The d e f e n d a n t s f a i l e d t o s o p e r f o r m . Benson c l a i m s a t t o r n e y f e e s a r i s i n g o u t o f c o n t r a c t . Whether f e e s s h o u l d b e awarded i f Benson had b e e n s u c c e s s f u l h a s now b e e n r e n d e r e d moot. The p o s i t i o n t a k e n by Benson from t h e beginning h a s been u n j u s t i f i e d . H e had a n o b l i g a t i o n t o d e - l i v e r t h e d e e d and a n i n s u r a b l e c l e a r t i t l e . H e w a s n o t , and i s not, e n t i t l e d t o e i t h e r attorney f e e s o r costs. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g summary judgment t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s , Dyes and Benson, i s r e v e r s e d . The c a u s e i s remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r summary judgment f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e i n f a v o r o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s and f o r t r i a l on t h 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.