STATE v DETIENNE

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 85-155 I N THE SUPREME C0UR.T O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1985 THE S T A T E O F MONTANA, A C T I N G BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT O F HIGHWAYS O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f and R e s p o n d e n t , VICTOR and VIBEKE DeTIENNE, husband & w i f e , Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i f 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 S h e r i d a n , T h e H o n o r a b l e R. C . M c D o n o u g h , Judge p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL O F RECORD: For A p p e l l a n t : O'Toole & Hunt, Plentywood, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t : Beate Galda, Dept. of H i g h w a y s , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d o n briefs: J u l y 2 5 , Decided: Filed: Clerk 1985 O c t o b e r 1 0 1 1985 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from the District Court of the Fifteenth Judicial District, Sheridan County, Montana, in a highway condemnation action. A six-man jury found the defendant-appellants negligent in constructing a building as close to the highway as they did and returned a verdict for the appellants of $5,802.60 for the land taken by the State of Montana. property. The jury found no depreciation to the remaining We affirm. The plaintiff, State of Montana, through the Department of Highways, brought an action to condemn priva te property owned by defendants, Victor and Vibeke DeTienne, for construction of a state highway pursuant to 5 60-4-102, MCA. The property in question is an 8.36 acre tract containing two steel buildings located east of Plentywood. One of the buildings, a 70' x 180' structure, used in part for a garage and sales office for trucks and equipment and in part for storage of lumber and building materials, is affected by the location of a new highway. The highway right-of-way was 95 feet from the building before the construction project , but the new right-of-way is about 4% feet from one corner of the building. When the building was built there was adequate room to back a 60 to 80 foot semi-truck into the building. It is now difficult to drive trucks into the building and impossible to drive them completely around because of the location of the new highway. the building A hearing to determine the value of the property being condemned was held before a three-man value commission who valued the land and improvements taken at $5,800 but found no depreciation to the remainder. The DeTiennes appealed that finding to the appe?lant was close the District Court. The i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e C o u r t a r e : Whether (1) negligent in the jury constructing statement his that huilding too to highway c o n s t i t u t e s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Whether (2) the court erred in granting the State's motion i n l i m i n e c o n c e r n i n g s a l e s between o t h e r l a n d owners on t h e p r o j e c t and t h e S t a t e a s condemning a u t h o r i t y . (3) Whether the court erred i n admitting c e r t a i n of the State's exhibits. (4) Whether the court erred in giving its jury i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e " q u o t i e n t method" f o r d e t e r m i n i n g damages t o b e awarded. (5) Whether the court erred in refusing to give DeTiennes' p r o p o s e d j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on i n c o n v e n i e n c e o f u s e . I n a n e m i n e n t domain a c t i o n t h e r i g h t o f t h e p r o p e r t y owner to receive compensation accrues at the d a t e of the s e r v i c e o f summons ( t h e t a k i n g ) , i n t h i s c a s e J u l y 3 0 , 1982. The t h e p r o p e r t y on t h a t d a t e i s t h e f a i r market v a l u e of measure of compensation Section 70-30-302(l), relevant. before relation taking the property actually I t i s o n l y t h a t v a l u e which i s ' b u i l d i n g was l a w f u l l y c o n s t r u c t e d and the reasons for its location The o n l y i s s u e s p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e j u r y a r e t h e f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e on J u l y 3 0 , the the in t o t h e new highway a r e i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e land a t t h e time of t h e taking. of taken. MCA. The DeTiennes the for land taken, value building, of was 1982, and w h e t h e r , a s a r e s u l t o f t h e t a k i n g , DeTiennes' remaining depreciated. property did not depreciate. The property, jury found including the the remaining DeTiennes a r g u e , however, the j u r y made t h i s f i n d i n g on " n e g l i g e n c e " r a t h e r t h a n i n a c c o r d with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s given were negligence given, and b e c a u s e no i n s t r u c t i o n s on the jury's finding constitutes reversible error. When t h e j u r y returned its verdict, t h e foreman, w i t h t h e c o u r t ' s p e r m i s s i o n , made t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : Well, w e were a l l w o n d e r i n g when we t a l k e d a b o u t t h i s a s t o why t h a t b u i l d i n g was b u i l t t h a t c l o s e t o t h e highway, and w e f e e l t h e d e f e n d a n t was n e g l i g e n t i n d o i n g what h e d i d , b u i l d i n g it t h a t c l o s e t o t h e highway. I t i s d o u b t f u l t h e jury understood negligence a s a l e g a l t e r m of art requiring the existence of a duty, but it as is commonly u n d e r s t o o d by t h e layman t o mean c a r e l e s s o r showing poor judgment. The c o u r t r e f u s e d t h e Highway D e p a r t m e n t ' s motion i n l i m i n e t o exclude evidence o f i t s d i s c u s s i o n s with DeTiennes i n 1980 about t h e Highway Department argued verdict not which was the based location of the building. location of the building. testimony on fair could market result value The in but a on DeTiennes a r g u e d s u c c e s s f u 7 1.y t h e jury should hear t h e reasons f o r t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g and d e c i d e f o r i t s e l f w h e t h e r t h e b u i l d i n g s h o u l d h a v e been placed f a r t h e r back from t h e highway. DeTiennes c a n n o t now a r g u e t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t was e r r o r b e c a u s e it was d e c i d e d on negligence r a t h e r than i n accord with t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s given. By i n s i s t i n g t h e e v i d e n c e o f l o c a t i o n b e a d m i t t e d , DeTiennes c a n n o t now complain t h e j u r y v e r d i c t was n o t what t h e y had f a c t t h e v e r d i c t was even expected, if evidence. a f f e c t e d by t h e The law i n Montana i s c l e a r : in I t has long been t h e r u l e o f t h i s Court t h a t on a p p e a l w e w i l l n o t p u t a D i s t r i c t Court i n e r r o r f o r a r u l i n g o r procedure in which the appellant acquiesced, p a r t i c i p a t e d , o r t o which a p p e l l a n t made no o b j e c t i o n . [Citing cases.] Green v . Green (1978), 176 Mont. 532, 536, 579 P.2d 1235, did not follow 1237. T h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e showing t h e j u r y the court's instruction. The j u r y was p r o p e r l y instructed r e g a r d i n g t h e measure o f damages i n a n e m i n e n t domain a c t i o n . I t h e a r d v a l u a t i o n t e s t i m o n y from two w i t n e s s e s . I t apparently agreed with t h e a v e r d i c t within t h e evidence. Highway Department commissioners in appraisers finding I t reached no and the three depreciation. value is There no e v i d e n c e t h e j u r y r e a c h e d i t s d e c i s i o n on t h e l e g a l d o c t r i n e o f n e g l i g e n c e , which c l e a r l y i s n o t p a r t o f t h i s c a s e . W e do n o t f i n d any i m p r o p e r c o n d u c t on t h e p a r t o f t h e j u r y o r a n y prejudicial effect Although neither foreman's remarks, comments. counsel or Nor did, the objected foreman's to statement, d o we impeach find comments. allowing suggests refusal foreman's reversible error. to, of prudence The intended because of the jury extraneous is however, not any i n d i c a t i o n t h e j u r y its verdict. "The rule in Montana i s a j u r y may n o t impeach i t s own v e r d i c t b a s e d on mistake of the J o h n s o n v. evidence Green or misapprehension ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 251, of 255, the law." 456 P.2d 290, 293. A second motion in limine offered by the Highway Department t o p r e v e n t t e s t i m o n y from o t h e r l a n d owners a l o n g the project properly regarding granted. their The sales sales to were the Department not fair was market t r a n s a c t i o n s , b u t w e r e made b e c a u s e o f impending condemnation proceedings and therefore w e r e n o t made between b u y e r and a w i l l i n g s e l l e r . Mont. is 403, the 413, 288 P. price that See S t a t e v . 181, 185. would be Hoblitt a willing ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 87 "Current f a i r market value agreed to by a willing and . .. i n f o r m e d s e l l e r and b u y e r , The cases cited by D e T i e n n e s , " S e c t i o n 70-30-313, Voyich ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Mont. 355, 384 P. 2d 765, and S t a t e v. G r e e n f i e l d ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 145 Mont. 164, 399 P.2d 989, a r e n o t on p o i n t . issue is comparability of test final of the S t a t e v. MCA. I n Voyich t h e t h e n e i g h b o r i n g l a n d and n o t t h e market value of the property being condemned. The i s s u e i n G r e e n f i e l d i s w h e t h e r an e x p e r t c a n testify to as transactions comparable between sales private and persons the prices before there paid in was any knowledge o f condemnation o f t h e l a n d s f o r highway p u r p o s e s . The reasons condemning for excluding authority evidence are N i c h o l s on Eminent Domain (Rev. 3 r d . Ed. well of such sales summarized through 1984) a s f o l l o w s : Even in those jurisdictions where evidence o f comparable s a l e s i s a d m i t t e d , it i s g e n e r a l l y h e l d by t h e w e i g h t o f a u t h o r i t y t h a t evidence of t h e s a l e of a p a r c e l o f l a n d s u b j e c t t o condemnation t o t h e p r o p o s e d condemnor o r t o a n o t h e r p o t e n t i a l condemnor may n o t b e a d m i t t e d a s evidence o f t h e v a l u e o f t h e land condemned. E v i d e n c e showing what t h e company s e e k i n g t o condemn h a s p a i d f o r o t h e r l a n d s would p r o b a b l y b e t a k e n by t h e jury a s i n d i c a t i n g t h e market value, when, a s a m a t t e r o f f a c t , it d o e s n o t t e n d t o show t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e A company condemning l a n d m i g h t b e land. w i l l i n g t o g i v e more t h a n it i s w o r t h , and t h e owner o f l a n d m i g h t b e w i l l i n g t o t a k e less t h a n it i s w o r t h , t h a t i s , l e s s t h a n i t s m a r k e t v a l u e , r a t h e r t h a n have a lawsuit. Moreover, when a company s e e k s t o g e t l a n d o r condemn i t f o r p u b l i c u s e s , h a v i n g t h e power t o condemn, t h e landowner would p r o b a b l y come t o some agreement w i t h it r a t h e r than have a l a w s u i t , and t h i s a g r e e m e n t would show a compromise r a t h e r t h a n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e land. T h e r e a r e many r e a s o n s which m i g h t b e advanced i n s u p p o r t o f t h i s almost, i f not quite, universal A s h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d , such s a l e s rule. a r e almost always i n t h e n a t u r e o f a compromise. The l a n d o w n e r , on t h e one side, may force a sale; and the to in a 5 condemnor, on t h e o t h e r , must have t h e l a n d , even t h o u g h it c o s t s more t h a n i t s value. Again, t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s and surroundings a r e n e c e s s a r i l y d i s s i m i l a r , and t h e amount p a i d i s n o t o n l y t h e v a l u e o f t h e land a c t u a l l y taken, b u t a l s o t h e damages done to the entire tract, d e p e n d i n g upon t h e e x i g e n c i e s o f t h e location of t h e parcel acquired, the number o f a c r e s i n t h e e s t a t e , and o t h e r f a c t s peculiar t o the p a r t i c u l a r case. A1 I i n c i d e n t a 1 damages a r e i n c l u d e d , and t h e s e , o f course, should n o t be taken i n t o account i n f i x i n g t h e acreage value i n t h e market. E v i d e n c e a s t o damages p a i d i n o n e c a s e would c e r t a i n l y n o t b e admissible i n o r d e r t o determine t h e damages done i n a n o t h e r . Such t e s t i m o n y d o e s n o t , a f t e r a l l , go t o t h e m a r k e t value of t h e land, except incidentally, and i t i s n o t a r e a s o n a b l e o r f a i r t e s t of m a r k e t v a l u e . For these we reasons hold sales to condemnors are not a d m i s s i b l e t o e s t a b l i s h f a i r m a r k e t v a l u e when t h e s a l e s a r e p a r t o f t h e same p r o j e c t which r e s u l t e d i n t h e condemnation of other property, that however i n controversy, and s i m i l a r t h e p r o p e r t y may b e to r e g a r d l e s s o f w h e t h e r t h e payment was t h e r e s u l t o f a s e t t l e m e n t , an award o r a j u r y v e r d i c t . W e a g r e e w i t h t h e Oregon C o u r t i n C i t y o f P o r t l a n d v. (Or. 1962), distinction 376 P.2d between 120, 123, voluntary Holmes that there is a very r e a l sales sales and made a u t h o r i t i e s a b o u t t o i n i t i a t e condemnation p r o c e e d i n g s . to Only i f t h e p r i c e p a i d i s v o l u n t a r y can it b e a r e a s o n a b l e i n d e x of v a l u e . DeTiennes argue admission of two of the Department's e x h i b i t s c o n s t i t u t e r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . Highway DeTiennes objected t o t h e i r admission during t r i a l f o r t h e reason they did not believe the exhibits were official records. DeTiennes f a i l e d t.o o b j e c t on t h e b a s i s o f l a c k o f f o u n d a t i o n and c a n n o t d o s o now. This Court has r u l e d previously t h a t a p a r t y c o m p l a i n i n g o f e r r o r must s t a n d o r f a l l on t h e ground T e e s d a l e v. A n s c h u t z D r i l l i n g r e l i e d on b y t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Co. f 1 9 6 0 ) , 138 Mont. Tebbs 4 2 7 , 4 4 1 , 357 P.2d ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 146, 160, 4, 314 P.2d 11; a n d B o w e r v. 731, 739. Rule 9 0 1 , Montana R u l e s o f E v i d e n c e , p e r m i t s a u t h e n t i c a t i o n o f a document by testimony of a witness m a t t e r i s what it i s claimed t o be. was d o n e h e r e . Montana Mr. Highway with knowledge that a T h i s i s p r e c i s e l y what Jay Randall, a d i s t r i c t engineer f o r t h e Department, testified the documents in q u e s t i o n were a set o f c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a n s f o r t h e Plentywood South project inaccuracies . Had DeTiennes concerned with i n t h e p l a n s o r w h e t h e r t h e p r o j e c t was b e i n g t h e y could have attempted t o b u i l t according t o t h e plans, show t h i s . affected been They d i d n o t show u s e o f t h e e x h i b i t s a t t r i a l any of t h e i r admission. their rights, or they were prejudiced by For t h e s e r e a s o n s w e f i n d no error by t h e court i n admitting t h e exhibits. DeTiennes o b j e c t t o p l a i n t i f f ' s j u r y i n s t r u c t i o n on t h e " q u o t i e n t method" f o r d e t e r m i n i n g c o m p e n s a t i o n : not permitted t o a r r i v e a t t h e You a amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n t o b e a w a r d e d b y the "quotient method," o r any o t h e r method w h e r e b y i n a d v a n c e o f d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount, you a g r e e t o b e bound b y t h e d e t e r m i n e d amount. R a t h e r , f o u r o r more o f y o u r number who h a v e a g r e e d t o award damages m u s t a g r e e upon a s p e c i f i c amount known t o e a c h o f you when you v o t e i n f a v o r o f a w a r d i n g t h a t amount. This instruction, i n d e e d , may h a v e a t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t . Mere t e c h n i c a l d e f e c t s i n t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s , i f considered a s a w h o l e , d o n o t r e n d e r s u c h errors r e v e r s i b l e error. v . Lee (Mont. 1 9 8 1 ) , 626 P.2d 8 3 0 , 8 3 4 , 38 S t . R e p . Lauman 499, 503. The o p e n i n g p h r a s e o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n c o u l d b e u n d e r s t o o d t o mean the t h e q u o t i e n t method p e r se i s i m p e r m i s s i b l e . entire sentence, however, ma.kes c l e a r Reading a n agreement in advance t o be impermissible. of bound by a n amount y e t t o be determined i.s The i n s t r u c t i o n c 1 e a r l . y p r o h i b i t s t h i s k i n d I t i s p o s s i b l e t h e j u r y was c o n f u s e d by t h e agreement. f i r s t phrase, but c l e a r l y t h e jury reached a v e r d i c t . There i s no showing t h i s was done by t h e i m p e r m i s s i b l e method o f DeTiennes a g r e e m e n t t o b e bound by an u n d e t e r m i n e d amount. failed to show any prejudice or interference with their s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s by r e a s o n o f t h e i n s t r u c t i o n . U n l e s s an an appellant, error affects the substantial rights of judgment w i l l n o t b e r e v e r s e d : On a p p e a l , p r e j u d i c e i s n e v e r presumed, and a judgment w i l l n o t b e r e v e r s e d merely because t h e lower c o u r t e r r e d ; i n i t must order t o work a reversal, a f f i r m a t i v e l y appear t h a t t h e e r r o r has a f f e c t e d s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s o f defendant [Citations on t h e m e r i t s o f t h e c a s e . It does n o t a f f i r m a t i v e l y omitted. ] a p p e a r from t h e r e c o r d t h a t d e f e n d a n t was prejudiced or t h a t substantial r i g h t s w e r e a f f e c t e d by r e a s o n o f t h e e r r o r . Conway v. Fabian (1939), 108 Mont. 1022, 1 0 3 7 , c e r t . d e n i e d 308 U.S. 287, 323-324, 578, 60 S.Ct. 89 P.2d 94, 84 L.Ed. F i n a l l y DeTiennes a r g u e e r r o r b e c a u s e t h e c o u r t r e f u s e d t o g i v e t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n no. 10: You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e amount o f d e p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e f a i r market v a l u e o f t h e remainder t o be paid by the State for the part of the you may Defendant's land not taken, consider inconvenience o f use t o t h e landowner resulting from t h e taking. O r d i n a r i l y damages may b e awarded o n l y f o r i n j u r y done to the particular right-of-way lot or s t r i p i s taken. tract of land for which the I n a s c e r t a i n i n g t h e award t o b e made, t h e v a l u e o f t h e a c r e a g e t a k e n and t h e d e p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e o f t h e remainder o f t h e p a r t i c u l a r t r a c t i s determined r e g a r d l e s s o f what o t h e r l a n d s t h e owner may p o s s e s s . Every item of inconvenience need not he considered by the jury. Instruction no. 10 could mislead the jury into believing it could consider any inconvenience to use suffered by DeTiennes whether or not it affected the market value of the property on the day of the taking. This is not the law. The amount of compensation to be awarded, whether the property actually is taken or injuriously affected by the taking, must be based on the market value of the property at the time of the taking. Only when inconvenience results in a diminution of market value of the property is it compensated. can not be for inconvenience per se. Compensation The damage being compensated must be to the [value of the] property itself. Less v. City of Butte (1903), 28 Mont. 27, 33, 72 P. 140, 141. The jury heard testimony on inconvenience and were properly instructed on the method to determine compensation. It concluded there was no diminution in the value of the property because of the location of the new highway, or because of any inconvenience resulting from its location. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. Justices M o r r i s o n , Jr. d i s s e n t s a s f o l l o w s : J u s t i c e Frank B. Mr. I d i s s e n t i n p a r t and c o n c u r i n p a r t . I s p e c i f i c a l l y a g r e e w i t h t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e i s s u e on impeaching t h e j u r y v e r d i c t u t i l i z i n g t h e v o l u n t e e r s t a t e m e n t o f t h e foreman. the jury The s t a t e m e n t by t h e foreman i n d i c a t i n g t h a t considered question. negligence 4 1 St.Rep. S u p e r Save M a r k e t s , 1495. an interesting I believe t h e i s s u e t o be c o n t r o l l e d By a n a l o g y , by J o h n s o n v. presents ( 1 9 8 4 ) , 686 P.2d Inc. 209, In t h a t case t h e jury returned a v e r d i c t f o r g e n e r a l damages i n t h e amount o f $17,000. However, t h e j u r o r s v o l u n t a r i l y added a hand w r i t t e n l i s t e n u m e r a t i n g f i v e separate elements $17,000. The of damage itemization accounting showed the for that the total jury of awarded damages f o r t h i n g s which d i d n o t f i n d s u p p o r t i n t h e r e c o r d . In refusing to impeach the verdict with the handwritten notations of the jurors, we said, ... w e a r e n o t c o m p e l l e d t o impeach a v e r d i c t with considerations of the jury which are vo1untariI.y o f f e r e d j u s t a s w e uniformly r e f u s e t o d o s o w i t h t h e same i n f o r m a t i o n a s e l i c i t e d u n d e r o a t h through a f f i d a v i t s . The s t a t e m e n t o f t h e foreman was a v o l u n t e e r s t a t e m e n t as the supra, hand written were. notations Therefore, in would I Johnson hold v. that Super the Save, foreman's s t a t e m e n t s should be disregarded. I dissent from the holding in the majority opinion a f f i r m i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t r u l i n g g r a n t i n g a motion i n limine foreclosing condemnation. consideration The of majority s a I es opinion under threat distinguishes of between c o m p a r a b l e s a l e s u t i l i z e d by an e x p e r t w i t n e s s i n a r r i v i n g a t market value establish and market the admissibility value. " s p l i t t i n g of h a i r s . " I believe of this those is sales to unnecessary However, t h e m o t i o n i n l i m i n e and t h e ruling thereon, i n t h i s case, foreclose the consideration of such s a l e s f o r any purpose. holding of this Court ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 2 Mont. 355, Such r u l i n g r u n s c o n t r a r y t o t h e in State 384 P.2d Highway Comm'n v. Voyich Justice Castles, 765. in holding such s a l e s admissible s a i d : a r e n o t c a l l e d upon, n o r d o we r u l e , on t h e q u e s t i o n o f a d m i s s i b i l i t y o f s a l e s t o condemners t o We have set forth e s t a b l i s h market price. s u f f i c i e n t h e r e , t h o u g h , t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t upon t h e o b j e c t i o n s r a i s e d by t h e S t a t e , a s h e r e t o f o r e q u o t e d , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was n o t i n e r r o r i n allowing t h e evidence f o r t h e reason t h a t t h e o b j e c t i o n went t o c o m p a r a b i l i t y of t h e l a n d s , which c o m p a r a b i l i t y was shown.. We .. I supra, believe is that clearly the holding that of sales the made condemnation a r e c o m p a r a b l e s a l e s . Court under in Voyich, threat of I f such s a l e s c o n s t i t u t e c o m p a r a b l e s a l e s t h e y can b e u s e d by an a p p r a i s e r i n a r r i v i n g a t market value. I t would a l s o seem t h a t t h e y a r e d i r e c t l y a d m i s s i b l e a l t h o u g h t h e C o u r t d i d n o t r u l e on t h a t q u e s t i o n . F o l l o w i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y found i n S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . Voyich, supra, consideration whatsoever. I would of these hold that it was "comparable sales" error t o prohibit for any purpose Such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n would r e q u i r e a n e w t r i a l . I would r e v e r s e and remand f o r a new t r i a l i n a c c o r d a n 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.