PARCEL v MYERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 8 3 - 5 6 0 . b IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 JACK HUGO PARCEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vsMERLIN W. MYERS, et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the 'I'enth Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, The Honorable R. D. McE1hillips,Judge presiding, COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mark L. Stermitz; Law Off ic Stanford, Montana of John R. Christensen, For Respondents: William E , Berger; Wilkins & Berger, Lewistown, Montana Hauqe, Ober & Brown, Havre, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Clerk Nov. 29, 1984 March 20, 1985 J u s t i c e Frank :B. Morrison, J r . , delivered t h e o p i n i o n o f t h e Court. Mr. Myers, porti.cm respondent/cross the of Ui.si-.ri.ct a:?pell.ant., Court appeals judgment. from wli:?.ch reduceil that the p u r c h a s e p r i c e o f t h e contra,c.t f o r deed i n f a v o r o f P a r c e l , appellant. P a r c e l b r o u g h t an ai:ti.on of the contract scription, a g a i n s t Myers f o r r e f o r m a t i o n d e f e c t i v e l e g a l de- f o r c?red c o n t a i n i n g n P a r c e l ' s a c t i o n against t h e surveyors responsible f o r t h e e r r o n e o u s s u r v e y was d i s m i s s e d w i t h p r e j u d i c e due t o P a r c e 1 . ' ~ f a i l u r e t o respond to s u r v e y o r s ' motion t o r ? i s n i i s s . F i n d i n g no l i a b i l i t y o f defendorits t o p l a i . n t i . f f s , t h e t r i a l c o u r t reformed t:he c o n t r a c t by c o r r e c t i n q t h e leqaI. d e s c r i p t i o n and r e d u c i n g t h e puxc:hast? p r i c e . Parcel." From f e e s a n d c o s t s i s a d d r e s s e d in o u r f i r s t o p i n i o n d e n i a l of - P.2d p u b l i s h e d i n Parcel. v , Myers (Mont. 19841 S t .Rep. sappeal 41 T h i s supplemerit~al d e c i s i o n d i s c u s s e s Myers' 2426, cross appeal. Jack P a r c e l purchased M~?r1.i.r and required Marcia Myers in Myers to have appiroximatc)I.y el.even a c r e s survey n The 1.979. p r e p a r e d and a c e r t i 5 i c a t e o f contract the of subject :survey r e c o r d e d . for from deed property Parcel had the r e q u i s i t e s u r v e y pricr?: t o c l o s h q when t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed was e x e c u t e d . E r r o r i n t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of su2tec.i From the surveyor using the t h e real, e s t a t e re- edge of the adjacent county r o a d a s t h e s t a r t i n g poi!?+: o f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n irisSead of the center line. correct description This of the mistake land shi.Fted thirty the otherwise f e e t t o tihe n o r t h . Pursuant t o t h i s cIefecti.ve c e r t i f i c a t e o f s u r v e y , t h e Mvers c o n t r a c t e d tc convey a s t r i p o f l a n d , t h i r t y f e e t wide and approximately 7 0 0 f e e t I.ong, which helonged t o t h e i r neighbor to the north. P a r c e l b r o u g h t an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Myers t o have t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n cor:recter! and t h e c o n t r a c t p r i c e reduced commen- surate with t h a t t h i r t y Myers did not district eourt descrille the have merchantable judyment land f o o t wi.de s t r i p o f reformed conveyed and title l a n d which t h e convey. to The t h e cowtract t o c o r r e c t l y reduced the t o t a l purchase p r , i c e i n t h e amount of $1,500. The s i n g u l a r i-ssue i n t h i s c r o s s - a p p e a l I, barrinq Whether the appellank" sale the of enti.tlement property is: was "j.n g r o s s s ' t o reformation o f t h e con- t r a c t f o r deed hy r e d u c t i o n of p u r c h a s e price. A t t h e o u t s e t o f o u r d i s c u s s i o n , we mention t h a t nppei- eit i a n t dcoes not a d d r e s s t h i s i s s u e i~ h e r t h e o r i g i n d l b r i e f o r a reply brief. by del:aul.t ?'ethnically, t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be r e s o l v e d i.n f a v o r o f respondent / c r o s s a p p e l l a n t . Myers c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n was a sale i n g r o s s .which does n o t e n t i t l e t h e purchaser reduction i n t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e . t o any W e agree. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s 013 are i n t e r n a l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t and w a r r a n t r e v e r s a l . t h e s p e c i f i c t.erm "i.n g r o s s " i s not used t h i s issue Although i n t h e language o f . i t s deoi.sion, t h e t r i a l judge c!learl.y d e s c r i b e d a b u l k real. e s t a t e t r a n s o r t i o n between P a r c e l and Ryers i n i t s f i n d i n g s , i n F i n d i n g N o . V t h e t r i a l c o u r t Found: "That Defendants a n d / o r t h e i r a g e n t r e p r e s e n t e d t o r i a i n t i f f t h e p r o p e r t y t o be conveyed was w i t h i n the. e x i s t i n g f e n c e s , excIuC7inq t h e County Road right-of-way.'" Followed 1.qr F i n d i n g hro. VI wili ch r e a d s : "That P l - a i n t i f f r e a s o n a b l y e n t i t l e d t o , and d i d , r e l y upon t h e representa+:.ions o f s a i d b o u n d a r i e s . '" The t r i a l c o u r t ' s most c o n v i n c i n g d e s c r i p t i o n of a r e a l e s t a t e transactiori " i n gross" i s found i n F i n d i n g No. XliI w h i c h provides: " " P l a i n t i f f looked a t t h e p r o p e r t y w i t h M r . Romcr They walked t h e Huges a t l e a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) t h e s . property. The p r o p e r t y i s fenced on i t s b o r d e r s and M r . Buges c!xpLainecI t o P l a i n t i f f , 'you a r e Looking a t what you g e t . ' There was nu c o n v e r s a t i o n a b o u t pri.ce p e r a r x e . N e g o t i a t i o n s were p r i m a r i l y about t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e and b u i l d j ngs, " After real t h i s unnnhi.guons d e s c r i p t i o n o f estate, the trial contradicted well.-establ.ished The l e q a l a u t h o r i t y rs u n e q u i v o c a l on t h i s s u b j e c t . 77 law a s a l e of the of ordered bulk in principles and court a $1,500 reduction o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t purchase p r i c e 1W.JurS2d, Vendor and P u r c h a s e r , S YO provides: "A c o n t r a c t o f s a l e by t h e acre i s one wherein a specified quantity i s material. Under such a c o n t r a c t t h e p u r c h a s e r does n o t t a k e t h e r i s k o f a n y d e f i c i e n c y and t h e vendor d o e s n o t t a k e t h e r i . s k o f any e x c e s s . The c o n t r a c t of s a l e by t h e . t r a c t o r i n g m s s i , s one wherein b o u n d a r i e s are specified, but quantity i i ! no? s p e c i f i e d , o r i f s p e c i f i e d , t h e exist:enee of t h e e x a c t q u a n t i t y s p e c i f i e d i s not m a t e r i a l ; each p a r t y t a k e s t h e r i s k o f t h e a c t u a l q u a n t i t y v a r y i n g to some e x t e n t From what he e x p e c t s i t to he." W e adopt the rationale the Arizona of Supreme Court wliich, o i . t i n g t h e a h o m 1 c q a . l a u t h o r i t y , h e l d : i* * . . " T h e r e i n , t h e r u l e was s t a t e d t h a t on a s a l e of: land by i t s Lecgal ~ i e s c r i p c i . o n , o r o t h e r s p e c i f i c d e s c r i p t i o n by which i t s k o u n d a r i e s a r e made c e r t a i n , f o r a s u m i.ii g r o s s , t h e b o u n d a r i e s w i l l c o n t r o l i n c a s e of a d i s c r e p a n c y a s t n q u a n t i t y , and t h a t such a s a l e i n g r o s s a f f o r d s n o remedy t o t h e g r a n t o r o r t h e g r a n t e e f o r an e x c e s s o r d e f i c i e n c y u n l e s s such e x c e s s i s s o g r e a t a s t o r a i s e a presumption o f frayid." Carrel.1 v . Lux (1966), 1 0 1 Ariz. 4 3 0 , 4 2 0 P.2d 5G4, 5 7 2 . The t r i a l judye found no e v i d e n r e o f c r o s s a p p e l l a n t s ' i n t e n t t o defrauc"ithe appel.lant p l a i n t h e reformat.i.on of , The o p i n i o n o e s n o t ex- t h e c o n t r a c t purchase p r i c e a s a n e x e r c i s e o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t s e q u i t a b l e power, For the reasons herein iliscussed, w e reverse the District C o u r t ' s decision reducing the original purchase price

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.