SCHNEELOCH v CORNMAN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 95-021 IN THE SUPREMECOURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1995 SUSAN SCHNEELQCH, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM R. CORNMANand JOAN R. CORNMAN, and all other persons unknown, claiming, or who might claim any right, title, estate or interest in or lien or encumbrance upon the real property described in the Complaint adverse to the Plaintiff's title thereto, where such claim or possible claim be present or contingent, Defendants APPEAL FROM: JirN 19 1995 and Respondents. District Court of the Twenty-First Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli, The Honorable Jeffrey H. Langton, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Michael Sol, Sol & Wolfe, Missoula, Montana For Respondent: Timothy D. Geiszler, Missoula, Montana Geiszler Submitted & Newcomer, on Briefs: Decided: Filed: I'Clerk April 20, 1995 June 19, 1995 Justice Terry The N. plaintiff, District County to quiet the filed a delivered Susan Court from Trieweiler for the title Schneeloch, William counterclaim real which the Court. complaint District estate they of a Judicial R. and Joan in opinion filed Twenty-First to certain defendants, the in in Ravalli and to recover R. Cornman. sought the damages The Cornmans title to the Court found same property. Following Cornmans of a nonjury were the real the trial, owners property the in fee simple described in Court also awarded Cornmans, and entered judgment the affirm District the Court's judgment and entitled costs District from District of in their findings, the complaint. attorney favor. District Court The fees to Schneeloch conclusions, the to possession Schneeloch's and that the appeals and judgment. in part and We reverse in part. The following 1. Were issues the are dispositive District on appeal: Court's findings of fact clearly erroneous? 2. to the Did the District Court err when it awarded attorney fees Cornmans? FACTUAL BACKGROUND On August 28, 1992, Susan Schneeloch William R. and Joan R. Cornman. quieted to a five to her home, acre and sought tract of damages Schneeloch land from 2 filed a complaint requested located in the Cornmans that Ravalli against title County as well. be next On December 8, 1992, the Cornmans filed counterclaim. entitled They alleged to judgment During quieting a nonjury an effort they agreed her, the to accept which and they her for real estate they that this documents to have title executed a deed for Schneeloch to explain husband magazines original contacted believed put this that and in that after deeds. in 1990 in and that according to transfer a receipt for her husband became angry consulting him, However, the she hid at the due to perceived Schneeloch then decided to a third person. a second deed transferring to Schneeloch, title She to they agreed to do so and purpose. deed away as well. returning However, from vacation, the house she had placed the in early deed had been lost July she found envelope that her stack of containing certain items. 1990 and told or destroyed. 3 she continued and moved the Her husband had even burned the Cornmans again the Joan to her. transferred son had cleaned which that of property with Revenue Service, According James Carpenter. documents in some magazines. asked the Cornmans to prepare acres deed and a realty because to the property were she met Joan the parcel; along money without from the Internal of five parcel a warranty three testified spending acre executed, that the Cornmans again $8000 in cash for gave all She also threats five Cornmans prepared certificate, $8000, the Schneeloch, testified at a parcel she contacted to purchase not to the property. Schneeloch looking that they, title trial, Cornman in 1987 while owned; she stated that an amended answer and the She them she The Cornmans had other buyers these new buyers. recorded for the property, Later, the Carpenter Schneeloch and Schneeloch in September deed. testified it when she found both documents. of the signatures 1990, She later that to contact Schneeloch found found the original was around Schneeloch on these deeds; attempted deed. mid-September was charged with however, these charges and IYYO forgery were later dropped. The Cornmans' testimony in every material warranty an original April 30, 1990; certificate; that and that She also denied property was allegedly Detective stated that she did not the she did not cooperate from William, like Schneeloch. Carpenter, did not him during testified Joan, deed by which in 1990. statements with 30 and May 15 warranty transfer County Sheriff's deed dispute many inconsistent that realty on the to James Carpenter. this he received deed. she did not any cash from Schneeloch. of the Ravalli he investigated a second warranty conveyed that April prepare she did not receive executing Cornman that allegations deed from the Cornmans to Schneeloch James Bailey William the previous Joan Cornman testified respect. sign contradicted that he that from Schneeloch, was familiar with he did not sign he did not receive husband Schneeloch's Be stated and the investigation. deeds and that testified Office and son, and the either $8000 James testify. ISSUE 1 Were the District Court's findings 4 of fact clearly erroneous? We will without not a jury the unless the 820 P.2d 1285, Schneeloch by corroborated the by allegations and not. Cornmans bound by the clear and We have 296, 41, 300, of the any District decision Cornmans' on properly be District that to are Court opinion her lack notarized of deeds controverted absent contrary. single evidence Court's the District witness, overcome Court and any findings that are was not there presumption was that deeds. that substantial as a reasonable a conclusion.'" the evidence, notarized held the cannot convincing the the that testimony allegations that its and 320, findings uncontroverted asserts by substantial made that also that clearly but based respond supported her including to are M.R.Civ.P.). that contends evidence sitting (1991) , 250 Mont. Court authentic be and convincing to and court findings District at trial, impermissibly to The the She are 35, a trial 52(a), circumstances, Schneeloch presumed Rule evidence credibility. evidence of court's (citing the evidence evidence, attached trial that the are disregarded 1287 argues unsupported clear findings Interstate Production Credit Ass n v. De&ye erroneous. 322, overturn mind evidence might accept "'is such as adequate relevant to support Accounts Management Corp. Y. Lyman Ranch ( 19 8 7 ) , 2 3 0 Mont . 748 P.2d 718 P.2d We have presented, it also is 919, 923 665, held a trial (quoting Bushnellv.Cooke (19861, 221 Mont. 668). that even court's duty 5 if conflicting to resolve evidence such conflicts; is due regard is to be given credibility of witnesses; our judgment for that 259 Mont. 354, 1287-88). credible, By contrast, 359, from Schneeloch and that deeds in question. province of credibility to the determination its witnesses of the substantial findings of that Court she would never sign that the warranty is within the to the judge weight the to be evidence is 542, 547, 591 P.2d 652, 105, We will 107, not A review on which the District and we conclude it case when 175 Mont. court. any money the original determine 180 Mont. MCA. received a nonjury especially district evidence fact in (1979), ยง 26-l-301, testimony The District stated and to Olsonv. Carter (1977), was to be evasive. the Cornmans' they had never court Neilsv.Deist See&o reveals she tended had not signed testimony, contradictory. 1239). district their 655 (citing they testimony credib1e.l We have previously the of that 820 P.2d at De&ye, and unqualified. deed to be highly to substitute Schneeloch's found Joan Cornman's testimony warranty to judge the Williams v. De Vinney ( 19 9 3 ) , found that unequivocal, ability 549 (citing and that Court The Cornmans testified given court. Court found that the District especially court's is not our function 856 P.2d 546, was misleading, was corroborated, a blank and it of the trial The District not to the trial that they 572 P.2d 1238, second of Court guess the the record could base were not clearly erroneous. 1 executed out. Schneeloch contended without the transferee's that the deed to Carpenter name and that she later filled 6 was it The reversed with judgment in this part, of with Internal Operating to the Montana Court for further is affirmed proceedings in part, consistent opinion. to precedent District and remanded Pursuant 1988 the Section and shall Clerk of I, Paragraph Rules, this be published the Law Week, Supreme State 3(c), decision by its Court Reporter We concur: 8 filing Montana shall Supreme not and West be cited as a public and by a report Publishing of Court as document its result Company.
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.
