NO. 82-62
I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA
FRANCES V. JARRETT,
Plaintiff and R e s p o n d e n t ,
VS.
L E O R . J A R R E T T , ADA M . C A S S A D Y , J A C K J A R R E T T and DORA J A R R E T T ,
D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: C o u r t of t h e F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , D i s t r i c t I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M u s s e l s h e l l Honorable N a t A l l e n , Judge presiding.
C o u n s e l of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
R o b e r t W. H o l m s t r o m argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For R e s p o n d e n t :
John L. P r a t t argued, Roundup, Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 19, 1983
Decided: February 1 8 , 1983
F i l e d : FEB 1 8 5983 Mr. J u s t i c e L . C . G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a c t i o n i s f o r p a r t i t i o n of a r a n c h by o n e of t h e t e n a n t s i n common. I t was h e a r d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Fourteenth
Judicial District, Musselshell County, which decided that the
r e s p o n d e n t d i d h a v e t h e r i g h t to p a r t i t i o n . Based o n t h e s t i p u - lation of the parties that the ranch could not be physically
divided, t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d , t h e p r o c e e d s to be
d i v i d e d among t h e c o t e n a n t s . J a c k and Dora J a r r e t t owned t h e f a m i l y r a n c h i n Musselshell
County. The r a n c h had b e e n i n Mrs. J a r r e t t t s f a m i l y f o r a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y 100 y e a r s . I n 1 9 7 2 , a s p a r t of an e s t a t e p l a n , t h e y began g i f t i n g the r a n c h t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n , James L . Jarrett, L e o R. Jarrett, and
Ada M. C a s s a d y , a s t e n a n t s i n common. T h i s g i f t i n g p r o g r a m was completed i n 1976, t h e r e b y g i v i n g each child an undivided 1/3 i n t e r e s t i n the property.
I n 1973 t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n e n t e r e d i n t o a one-year l e a s e of the property with their parents. Under the lease the parents p a i d a l l t h e t a x e s and m a i n t a i n e d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s . These d u t i e s
constituted t h e i r r e n t a l payments. The l e a s e a l s o c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n t h a t it was t o be a u t o m a t i c a l l y renewed a n n u a l l y u n l e s s terminated i n w r i t i n g b y e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s a t l e a s t t h i r t y
d a y s p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e a n n u a l term. All t h e income from t h e r a n c h w e n t to t h e p a r e n t s , including
o i l and g a s l e a s e p a y m e n t s , which a l l the children assigned to them. I n 1980, James L . Jarrett, o n e of the children, died. A t
that time his wife, Frances V. Jarrett, inherited his 1/3 i n t e r e s t i n the ranch. I n J u n e 1981, Frances brought an a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n of the ranch, and t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d s h e was
t h e owner o f a n u n d i v i d e d 1 / 3 i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y .
Three issues a r e presented i n t h i s case: 1. Whether an implied agreement between the c o t e n a n t s and
p a r e n t s waived t h e i r r i g h t to p a r t i t i o n ? 2. W h e t h e r t h e c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e imposed a r e s u l t i n g trust upon t h e p a r t i e s to p r e v e n t p a r t i t i o n ?
3. Whether or not the sale of the ranch ordered by the District Court, because i t c o u l d n o t p h y s i c a l l y be p a r t i t i o n e d ,
s h o u l d be made s u b j e c t t o t h e l e a s e of 2/3 o f it t o J a c k and D o r a
Jarrett? S e c t i o n 70-29-101, MCA, authorizes partition. That s e c t i o n r e a d s as f o l l o w s :
"- c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n authorized--who A may b r i n--. ~ K e x e i e r a l c ! E e n a n t s h 7 l 1 d and a r e i n - g s p o s s e s s i o n o f r e a l p r o p e r t y as j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common, i n which o n e or more of them h a v e a n e s t a t e of i n h e r i t a n c e o r f o r l i f e o r l i v e s o r f o r y e a r s , a n a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t b y o n e o r more o f s u c h p e r s o n s f o r a p a r t i t i o n t h e r e o f , a c c o r d i n g to t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s o f t h e p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n , and f o r a s a l e o f s u c h p r o p e r t y or a p a r t t h e r e o f i f it a p p e a r s t h a t a p a r t i t i o n c a n n o t be made w i t h o u t a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e to t h e owners." From t h e w o r d i n g o f t h a t s e c t i o n , i t may a p p e a r t h a t t h e r i g h t t o
partition is a b s o l u t e . However, i n Lawrence v , Harvey (198O),
Mon t . --.-. -.- .- , 607 P.2d 5 5 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 370, t h i s Court h a s d e c l a r e d it i s n o t , w h e r e it s t a t e s : " A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e is t h a t a c o t e n a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i t i o n as a m a t t e r of r i g h t , a n d n o t m e r e l y as a matter of g r a c e w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . W h i l e t h e r i g h t is s o m e t i m e s s a i d t o be a b s o l u t e , p a r t i t i o n may be d e n i e d w h e r e i t would b e a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y or l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e r i g h t may i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s be w a i v e d by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . 68 C. J . S . P a r t i t i o n S 21; 59 Arn.Jur.2d P a r t i t i o n S 30; 4 Thompson o n Real P r o p e r t y S 1 8 2 2 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; 2 T i f £ a n y o n Real P r o p e r t y S 474 ( 3 r d Ed. 1 9 3 9 ) ; 4A P o w e l l o n R e a l P r o p e r t y S 6 1 1 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ." 607 P.2d a t 5 5 5 , 5 5 6 . The a p p e l l a n t s contend that the e x i s t e n c e of an agreement waiving partition is implied here because of the family understanding to allow t h e parents to live on the land until t h e i r deaths. W e do n o t a g r e e . The t e s t i m o n y o f L e o R. J a r r e t t ,
t h e s u r v i v i n g s o n p o i n t s to t h e a b s e n c e of any agreement, as h e
testified that there was never any specific discussion or a g r e e m e n t on w h e t h e r t h e c o t e n a n t s c o u l d or c o u l d n o t p a r t i t i o n .
Furthermore, the testimony of Ada M. Cassady, the Jarrettls daughter, and one of the cotenants, makes clear the lack of agreement, express or implied, where she testified that her
brother J i m , prior to h i s d e a t h , stated t h a t he c o u l d l e g a l l y claim a p o r t i o n o f t h e r a n c h .
I t must be understood that " [ c l o t e n a n t s have the right to equal access and use of the property held in common . . ." Toeckes v. Baker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -- -- Mont . -- -- , 6 1 1 P.2d 6 0 9 , 6 1 2 , 37
St.Rep. 948. To i m p l y a n a g r e e m e n t w a i v i n g p a r t i t i o n u n d e r t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case would d e p r i v e F r a n c e s J a r r e t t , o n e of t h e c o t e n a n t s , o f h e r r i g h t s to t h e p r o p e r t y . The n e x t i s s u e t h a t m u s t be a d d r e s s e d is w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a
r e s u l t i n g t r u s t i n f a v o r of t h e p a r e n t s . Both s i d e s raise the same case when speaking of resulting
trust. E c k a r t v. Hubbard ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - - Mont . -- - -. . . 602 P.2d 9 8 8 ,
36 S t . R e p . 2061.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NO. 82-62
I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA
FRANCES V. JARRETT,
Plaintiff and R e s p o n d e n t ,
VS.
L E O R . J A R R E T T , ADA M . C A S S A D Y , J A C K J A R R E T T and DORA J A R R E T T ,
D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: C o u r t of t h e F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , D i s t r i c t I n and f o r t h e C o u n t y of M u s s e l s h e l l Honorable N a t A l l e n , Judge presiding.
C o u n s e l of Record:
For A p p e l l a n t s :
R o b e r t W. H o l m s t r o m argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
For R e s p o n d e n t :
John L. P r a t t argued, Roundup, Montana
Submitted: J a n u a r y 19, 1983
Decided: February 1 8 , 1983
F i l e d : FEB 1 8 5983 Mr. J u s t i c e L . C . G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .
T h i s a c t i o n i s f o r p a r t i t i o n of a r a n c h by o n e of t h e t e n a n t s i n common. I t was h e a r d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Fourteenth
Judicial District, Musselshell County, which decided that the
r e s p o n d e n t d i d h a v e t h e r i g h t to p a r t i t i o n . Based o n t h e s t i p u - lation of the parties that the ranch could not be physically
divided, t h e c o u r t o r d e r e d t h e p r o p e r t y s o l d , t h e p r o c e e d s to be
d i v i d e d among t h e c o t e n a n t s . J a c k and Dora J a r r e t t owned t h e f a m i l y r a n c h i n Musselshell
County. The r a n c h had b e e n i n Mrs. J a r r e t t t s f a m i l y f o r a p p r o x i -
m a t e l y 100 y e a r s . I n 1 9 7 2 , a s p a r t of an e s t a t e p l a n , t h e y began g i f t i n g the r a n c h t o t h e i r c h i l d r e n , James L . Jarrett, L e o R. Jarrett, and
Ada M. C a s s a d y , a s t e n a n t s i n common. T h i s g i f t i n g p r o g r a m was completed i n 1976, t h e r e b y g i v i n g each child an undivided 1/3 i n t e r e s t i n the property.
I n 1973 t h e t h r e e c h i l d r e n e n t e r e d i n t o a one-year l e a s e of the property with their parents. Under the lease the parents p a i d a l l t h e t a x e s and m a i n t a i n e d t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s . These d u t i e s
constituted t h e i r r e n t a l payments. The l e a s e a l s o c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n t h a t it was t o be a u t o m a t i c a l l y renewed a n n u a l l y u n l e s s terminated i n w r i t i n g b y e i t h e r of the p a r t i e s a t l e a s t t h i r t y
d a y s p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e a n n u a l term. All t h e income from t h e r a n c h w e n t to t h e p a r e n t s , including
o i l and g a s l e a s e p a y m e n t s , which a l l the children assigned to them. I n 1980, James L . Jarrett, o n e of the children, died. A t
that time his wife, Frances V. Jarrett, inherited his 1/3 i n t e r e s t i n the ranch. I n J u n e 1981, Frances brought an a c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n of the ranch, and t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d s h e was
t h e owner o f a n u n d i v i d e d 1 / 3 i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y .
Three issues a r e presented i n t h i s case: 1. Whether an implied agreement between the c o t e n a n t s and
p a r e n t s waived t h e i r r i g h t to p a r t i t i o n ? 2. W h e t h e r t h e c o u r t s h o u l d h a v e imposed a r e s u l t i n g trust upon t h e p a r t i e s to p r e v e n t p a r t i t i o n ?
3. Whether or not the sale of the ranch ordered by the District Court, because i t c o u l d n o t p h y s i c a l l y be p a r t i t i o n e d ,
s h o u l d be made s u b j e c t t o t h e l e a s e of 2/3 o f it t o J a c k and D o r a
Jarrett? S e c t i o n 70-29-101, MCA, authorizes partition. That s e c t i o n r e a d s as f o l l o w s :
"- c t i o n f o r p a r t i t i o n authorized--who A may b r i n--. ~ K e x e i e r a l c ! E e n a n t s h 7 l 1 d and a r e i n - g s p o s s e s s i o n o f r e a l p r o p e r t y as j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n common, i n which o n e or more of them h a v e a n e s t a t e of i n h e r i t a n c e o r f o r l i f e o r l i v e s o r f o r y e a r s , a n a c t i o n may be b r o u g h t b y o n e o r more o f s u c h p e r s o n s f o r a p a r t i t i o n t h e r e o f , a c c o r d i n g to t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s o f t h e p e r s o n s i n t e r e s t e d t h e r e i n , and f o r a s a l e o f s u c h p r o p e r t y or a p a r t t h e r e o f i f it a p p e a r s t h a t a p a r t i t i o n c a n n o t be made w i t h o u t a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e to t h e owners." From t h e w o r d i n g o f t h a t s e c t i o n , i t may a p p e a r t h a t t h e r i g h t t o
partition is a b s o l u t e . However, i n Lawrence v , Harvey (198O),
Mon t . --.-. -.- .- , 607 P.2d 5 5 1 , 37 S t . R e p . 370, t h i s Court h a s d e c l a r e d it i s n o t , w h e r e it s t a t e s : " A l t h o u g h t h e r e a r e no Montana c a s e s d i r e c t l y o n p o i n t , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e is t h a t a c o t e n a n t i s e n t i t l e d t o p a r t i t i o n as a m a t t e r of r i g h t , a n d n o t m e r e l y as a matter of g r a c e w i t h i n t h e d i s c r e t i o n of t h e c o u r t . W h i l e t h e r i g h t is s o m e t i m e s s a i d t o be a b s o l u t e , p a r t i t i o n may be d e n i e d w h e r e i t would b e a g a i n s t p u b l i c p o l i c y or l e g a l o r e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s , and t h e r i g h t may i n a p p r o p r i a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s be w a i v e d by a g r e e m e n t o f t h e p a r t i e s . 68 C. J . S . P a r t i t i o n S 21; 59 Arn.Jur.2d P a r t i t i o n S 30; 4 Thompson o n Real P r o p e r t y S 1 8 2 2 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; 2 T i f £ a n y o n Real P r o p e r t y S 474 ( 3 r d Ed. 1 9 3 9 ) ; 4A P o w e l l o n R e a l P r o p e r t y S 6 1 1 ( 1 9 4 9 ) ." 607 P.2d a t 5 5 5 , 5 5 6 . The a p p e l l a n t s contend that the e x i s t e n c e of an agreement waiving partition is implied here because of the family understanding to allow t h e parents to live on the land until t h e i r deaths. W e do n o t a g r e e . The t e s t i m o n y o f L e o R. J a r r e t t ,
t h e s u r v i v i n g s o n p o i n t s to t h e a b s e n c e of any agreement, as h e
testified that there was never any specific discussion or a g r e e m e n t on w h e t h e r t h e c o t e n a n t s c o u l d or c o u l d n o t p a r t i t i o n .
Furthermore, the testimony of Ada M. Cassady, the Jarrettls daughter, and one of the cotenants, makes clear the lack of agreement, express or implied, where she testified that her
brother J i m , prior to h i s d e a t h , stated t h a t he c o u l d l e g a l l y claim a p o r t i o n o f t h e r a n c h .
I t must be understood that " [ c l o t e n a n t s have the right to equal access and use of the property held in common . . ." Toeckes v. Baker ( 1 9 8 0 ) , -- -- Mont . -- -- , 6 1 1 P.2d 6 0 9 , 6 1 2 , 37
St.Rep. 948. To i m p l y a n a g r e e m e n t w a i v i n g p a r t i t i o n u n d e r t h e
c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case would d e p r i v e F r a n c e s J a r r e t t , o n e of t h e c o t e n a n t s , o f h e r r i g h t s to t h e p r o p e r t y . The n e x t i s s u e t h a t m u s t be a d d r e s s e d is w h e t h e r t h e r e w a s a
r e s u l t i n g t r u s t i n f a v o r of t h e p a r e n t s . Both s i d e s raise the same case when speaking of resulting
trust. E c k a r t v. Hubbard ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - - Mont . -- - -. . . 602 P.2d 9 8 8 ,
36 S t . R e p . 2061. I n t h a t case we s t a t e d : "A r e s u l t i n g t r u s t o c c u r s w h e r e , as a r e s u l t o f c e r t a i n a c t s , a c o u r t f i n d s t h a t t h e r e is a n i m p l i e d i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a t r u s t and impo- ses a t r u s t t o a c h i e v e a n e q u i t a b l e r e s u l t . U s u a l l y r e s u l t i n g t r u s t s involve c a s e s where t h e p a r t i e s h a v e u s e d a m b i g u o u s l a n g u a g e which t h e c o u r t c o n s t r u e s as showing a t r u s t i n t e n t , o r w h e r e t h e p a r t i e s h a v e e x p r e s s e d no i n t e n t t o c r e a t e a t r u s t by w o r d s , b u t h a v e p e r f o r m e d a c t s from w h i c h t h e c o u r t i n f e r s t h a t a t r u s t was i n t e n d e d . -o g e r t , s u p r a , 5 7 1 , p. B- 262." 6 0 2 P.2d a t 991. I n the present case it is n o t contended t h a t the language
u s e d by t h e p a r t i e s was a m b i g u o u s . The d e e d s c o n v e y i n g t h e f e e t i t l e o f t h e l a n d t o t h e c h i l d r e n a r e c l e a r , as a r e t h e t e r m s of
t h e lease b e t w e e n t h e p a r e n t s and c h i l d r e n . I t is c l a i m e d that t h e p a r t i e s ' a c t i o n s show t h a t t h e p a r e n t s were t o h a v e t h e bene- f i c i a l use of t h e l a n d . However, t h e s e a c t i o n s were b a s e d o n t h e terms o f t h e l e a s e . T h e r e f o r e , t h e r e is no r e s u l t i n g t r u s t . The f i n a l i s s u e t o be a d d r e s s e d is w h e t h e r o r n o t t h e r a n c h
p r o p e r t y s h o u l d be s o l d s u b j e c t t o a lease on 2/3 o f it from Leo
R. J a r r e t t and Ada M. C a s s a d y t o J a c k and D o r a J a r r e t t . The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t i t s h o u l d n o t be s o l d s u b j e c t
t o s u c h a lease i s c o r r e c t . I t i s t r u e a t e n a n t i n common may l e a s e h i s i n t e r e s t i n p r o - p e r t y to anyone he w i s h e s . H o c h s p r u n g v. Stevenson (1928), 82 Mont. 2 2 2 , 266 P . 4 0 6 ; Arnundson v . Gordon ( 1 9 5 8 ) , 1 3 4 Mont. 1 4 2 , 328 P.2d 6 3 0 . However, t h e l e a s e i n q u e s t i o n h e r e is n o t a lease b y e a c h c o t e n a n t o f h i s o r h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e r a n c h p r o p e r t y to
t h e p a r e n t s , b u t is a lease b y a l l o f t h e c o t e n a n t s o f t h e e n t i r e
ranch property. This lease of the entire property expired J a n u a r y 3 , 1 9 8 2 , s u b s e q u e n t t o t h e d a t e on which F r a n c e s s e n t h e r
n o t i c e of termination, and p r i o r t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s final
judgment of January 28 1982. Under these circumstances, in o r d e r f o r t h e a u t o m a t i c r e n e w a l p r o v i s i o n i n t h e l e a s e , which i n
e f f e c t is a new l e a s e o f t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y each y e a r , t o be e f f e c t i v e a l l t h e c o t e n a n t s m u s t a g r e e t o or r a t i f y t h e l e a s e , b e c a u s e it is a w e l l - s e t t l e d p r i n c i p a l of t h e l a w t h a t :
" - - -o make a b i n d i n g - a s e - -- I n o r d e r t - ---- le of t h e e n t- e common p r o p e r t y , a --l o £ - c o - o w n e- - - ir - -- l - the r~ m u s t - e i t h e r -o i n t l-- -r -- v e r a l l y , -- - - . act, - j - y o- se - - f o r it - -w e- - e t t l e d -t-- a t o n e c o t e n a n t h a s - power 1s - l l s h . - no t o l e a s e t h e e n t i r e e s t a t e , - - -a n y s p e c i f i c or p o r t i o n -- r e o f , u- l e s s - - -- -l-y -a u t h o r i z e d the -n he is d u - - o d o so b y h t- - -- - -t --e o t h e r c o t e n a n t s . I f one of t h e c o - o w n e r ~ s h o u l d p u r p o s e t o make a n u n a u t h o r i z e d lease o f t h i s k i n d , it is i n no way b i n d i n g upon t h e i n t e r e s t s of t h e o t h e r owners " . (Emphasis added. ) Cotenancy o n J o i n t Ownership g 100. 20 Am.Jur.2d ( S e e also ---- P o w e l l on ~ G l - ~ m e r t y V O ~ . 4A, g 6 0 8 . ) , Frances Jarrett's notice of termination, which would o n l y be e f f e c t i v e as t o h e r 1 / 3 i n t e r e s t u n d e r c i r c u m s t a n c e s o t h e r t h a n a
new l e a s e , 20 Am.Jur.2d -n a n c y a - J Cote - nd -- o i n t -O w n e r s h i p g 1 0 0 , i n d i - -
cates that she n e i t h e r agreed to n o r i n a n y way r a t i f i e d the renewal of t h e l e a s e f o r 1982. T h e r e f o r e , t h e automatic renewal
p r o v i s i o n c a n n o t t a k e e f f e c t , b e c a u s e as p o i n t e d o u t a b o v e , it is i n e f f e c t a new lease o f t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y and t h u s n e e d s t h e agreement o r r a t i f i c a t i o n of a l l t h e c o t e n a n t s . F o r t h e f o r e g o i n g r e a s o n s , t h e j u d g m e n t o f the? D i s t r i c t C o u r t is a f f i r m e d .
Justice :4e c o r c u r :
%&,$?"~ e I Jhgti Chief L . P Q