BLAKELY v KELSTRUP
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
85-172 No. I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 YOLANDA BLAKELY, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, REIDER E . KELSTRUP and DELORES J. KELSTRUI? , Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of G a l l a t i n , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joseph B. G a r y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: M o r r o w , S e d i v y & B e n n e t t ; L y m a n H. B e n n e t t , B o z e m a n , Montana For Respondent: Wayne J e n n i n g s , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A u g . Decided: 15, 1 9 8 5 O c t o b e r 22, 1385 J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. i s an appeal This Court, District County, W. Joseph Eighteenth Montana. Lessley Following Judicial judgment t h e bench at the hearing the court found trial the t h e H o n o r a b l e W. at bench trail of Gallatin District, presiding Gary the and The c a s e w a s b i f u r c a t e d , presiding B. from a n o r d e r and t h e Honorable on damages. the plaintiff e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f two m o b i l e homes a n d t h r e e a c r e s o f l a n d , m o r e o r l e s s , on w h i c h t h e homes w e r e s i t u a t e d . subsequent hearing t r e b l e damages o f on damages $4,500 the court awarded p u r s u a n t t o 5 70-27-207, r e a s o n a b l e r e n t o f t h e t r a i l e r homes and l a n d . appeals. A t the plaintiff MCA, for The d e f e n d a n t We affirm. P l a i n t i f f , Yolanda B l a k e l y , b o u g h t , d e v e l o p e d , i m p r o v ~ d and then attempted t o sell land. The l a n d i n q u e s t i o n was l e a s e d t o d e f e n d a n t s , R e i d e r and D o l o r e s Kel s t r u p , rent-free During t h e l e a s e p e r i o d Rlakely a s s i g n e d h e r f o r f i v e years. i n t e r e s t i n the leased property t o t h e Triple B Trust. The assignment was to interest recorded. her through The a A t t h e end o f t h e recorded. Trust later reassigned the quitclaim deed, which not was lease period Kelstrups refused t o v a c a t e t h e p r e m i s e s and B l a k e l y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t them u nd e r Montana's T i t l e 70, ch. f o r c e a b l e e n t r y and d e t a i n e r s t a t u t e s , 2 7 , MCA. Kelstrups defended, a l l e g i n g Blakely was n o t t h e p r o p e r p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n b e c a u s e s h e w a s not the real party in interest, and the action on the should be dismissed. Resolution of the case turns between t h e r e c o r d i n g s t a t u t e s and which party in interest. relationship party is the real Kelstrups claim Blakely i s not t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t because she did not record t h e reassignment t o h e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y and t h e r e f o r e does not mistake have record record title title with legal property without recordation. affecting title t o those vrho the property. The title. A p r o p e r t y owner c a n h a v e v a l i d synonymous. unrecorded to Recordation a are a s between thereof." device to Section establish legal t i t l e t o the parties 70-21-102, priority, "An and MCA. but Lawler v. Gleason nothing t o do w i t h conveying t i t l e . 1 9 5 5 ) , 279 P.2d 70, 7 3 . not The r u l e i s an u n r e c o r d e d deed is valid notice is two l a n d i s v a l i d between t h e p a r t i e s . instrument have Kelstrups has (Cal. The p u r p o s e o f r e c o r d i n g i n s t r u m e n t s i s t o g i v e n o t i c e t o s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r s and e n c u m b r a n c e r s . U n l e s s it i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t r e c o r d i n g t h e d e e d p a s s e s t i t l e it d o e s n o t d o s o , The r e c o r d d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e such i n t e n t i o n . Documents a r e r e c o r d e d t o a l e r t t h o s e p e r s o n s who m i g h t change t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t i t l e , specifically subsequent purchasers Kelstrups a r e holdover t e n a n t s . p r o p e r t y was a r e n t - f r e e within the statutes. scope Their and mortgagees. The Their only i n t e r e s t i n t h e f i v e year lease. protection legal and They d o n o t f a l l afforded position is not by the recording affected whether Blakely o r t h e T r i p l e B T r u s t holds t i t l e t o t h e property. I n any e v e n t , B l a k e l y h o l d s t i t l e b e c a u s e , t h o u g h u n r e c o r d e d , s h e h o l d s a v a l i d deed from T r i p l e B T r u s t . I f , however, t h e t r u s t had conveyed a deed t o y e t a n o t h e r p a r t y who r e c o r d e d it p r i o r t o B l a k e l y ' s r e c o r d i n g , be superior t o Blakely's t h a t p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t would and B l a k e l y would n o t b e t h e r e a l party in i n t e r e s t . Kelstrups' argument that Blakely is not the proper p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n due t o t h e e a r l i e r a s s i g n m e n t j.s without merit. The law i n Montana f o r o v e r e i g h t y y e a r s h a s been a p l a i n t i f f v e s t e d w i t h l e g a l t i t l e i s t h e r e a l p a r t y i n interest. P. G e n z b e r g e r v . Adams ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 430, 436, 205 658, 660. See a l s o Rae v. Cameron ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 112 Mont. 1 7 5 , 1 1 4 ,P.2d 1060, 1067. "every action Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. s h a l l be prosecuted party i n interest. .. 159, provides, i n t h e name o f t h e r e a l " Requiring t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t o b r i n g an a c t i o n protects a defendant from multiple suits. Allowing this judgment t o s t a n d w i l l n o t s u b j e c t t h e K e l s t r u p s t o m u l t i p l e suits. T r i p l e B T r u s t d i v e s t e d i t s e l f o f any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y and c a n n o t now b e h e a r d t o c l a i m i t was t h e i n j u r e d party. To a l l o w it t o d o s o would n e g a t e t h e argument t h a t Blakely is the real party in interest. Dismissing this a c t i o n would b e t a n t a m o u n t t o a r g u i n g t h e r e i s no r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , c l e a r l y an absurdity. t o t h e same l i a b i l i t y r e g a r d l e s s The K e l s t r u p s a r e s u b j e c t o f who owns t h e p r o p e r t y . They a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e same p r o t e c t i o n a s a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r and c e r t a i n l y a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o more p r o t e c t i o n . The p r o p e r p a r t y b r o u g h t t h e a c t i o n . D i s t r i c t Court is affirmed. W e concur: The decision of 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.
