am:iiuclo PARCEL,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, S - MERT.,IN W, MYERS, et. n i . , Defendants and Respondents.
APTTEA?, FROM: District C o u r r t of the T e n t h J u d i c i a l Di.s"Lrici:., In and for the Cnuni,y of Ferqns, The Honorable R. D. McPbilLips, Judge presiding.
F'or Aypel1an.t: Mark L. Stermitz, S t a n f o r d , Montana
For Respondents: . William E Berger , L e w i s t - o w n , Montana Hauge, Ober & Brown, fifxvr~" Montana
Suh~iitt:ed on Briefs: Nnv. 7 9 , 1984 Decided: December 2 8 , 1 9 8 4
."," Clerk Mr. Jiist i.ce Frank 1. Morrison, Jr. 7 , del i v e r e d t h e Opini.on of
t h e Court,
P a r c e l appea1.s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment. e n t e r e d
by tlhe D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i - a l D i s t r i c t denyinn;
him an award f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s .
A p p e l l a n t , J a c k Hugo P a r c e l , f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t on Febru-
ary 2 , 1981, r e g u e s t i n q r e f o r m a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t f o r deed
f o r hi.s p u r c h a s e of r e a l e s t a t e and also i . s s e r t i n y c l a i m s o f
fraud and negligent ntisreprosentation against the Myers,
seliers, a n d William Smith and Rona2.d F. Bastin, surveyors
responsible for the subject defective legal description.
Parcel claimed $10,000 i n clamaqes and $25,000 i n punitive
rlainagez; under his fraud c1ai.m. Bastin an(? Smith filed a
motion t.o d i s m i s s t h e f r a u d c l a i m ctgainst them. The t r i . a ?
court. d i s m i s s e d a p p e l l a n t ' s actiacm a g a i n s t t h e s u r v e y o r s w i t h
p r e j u d i c e when a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o respond t o t h i s n o t i o n t o
dismi.sc., Myers answered, c o u n - l - e r e l a i m e and cross-cIajmed
against Bastin arid Smith for indemnity. All motions to
d i s m i s s and motions f o r surnmary juclgment f i l e d by r e s p o n d e n t s
and t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s were d e n i e d ,
Thc a c t i o n was t r i e d t o t h c c o u r t on January 3 1 , 1983, Finclingis, conclusions and judpent thereon were filed on December 13, 1 9 8 3 , The d i s t r i c t judge reformed t h e c o n t r a c t
f o r deed i n the amount of $1,500, denied a l l o t h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Myers, o r d e r e d n l i p a r t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o s t s a n d
a t t o r n e y f e e s , h u t f a i l e d t o r u l e on khe t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n ,
P a r c e l a p p e a l s o n l y o n t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .
Jack Parcel p~~rehased a parcel. of real estate From
Mer1i.n and Marcia Myers on o r a b o u t J u l y 9 , 1.979. The buy-
s e l l agreement described the property as "Merlin W. Myers
home cons:isti.ng of hoiise, shop and 1 1 . 5 7 a c r e s mol-e o r l e s s
inmiediately west o f Lewistown. " N e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e p u r c h a s e price and the conditioris of the buii.dings required three
b u y s e l l agreements t o be d r a f t e d b ~ $ f n r e h e F i n a l c o n t r a c t t
f o r deed was e x e c u t e d i n August 1 9 7 9 , No p u r c h a s e p r i c e p e r a c r e was e v e r t h e s u b j e c t o f nego-kist;.ons n o r were p e r a c r e
kerms p r i n t e d on t h e f a c e o f t h e f i n a l b u y - s e l l agreement o r
t h e r e s u l t a n t c o n t r a c t For deed.
Parcel required t h a t Myers have a new c c r t i f i . c a t e of
s u r v e y p r e p a r e d and rmcorded w i t h i n a reasonab1.e t i m e a f t e r
t h e c l o s i n g of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . Parcel's r e q u i r e m e n t of a
s u r v e y a s c o n d i t i o n of t h e s a l e , was t o a s s u r e him t h a t Myers
had clear title and ownership of the property within the
f e n c e s wlrich were r e p r e s e n t e d t o Parcel. a s t h e b o u n d a r i e s of
t h e l a n d he was p u r c h a s i n g . Smith completed t h e s u r v e y a f e w
days p r i o r t o t h e s i g n i n g of t h o c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d . Si.nce
Smith was unlicensed, Bastin certified the survey leqa1l.y
correct i n all. respects. Paroc:! confirmed t h a t t h e d e s c r i p -
tion on the s u r v e y matched the 1.egal. d e s c r i p t i o n on the
contract f o r deed p r i o r to closi-na t h e sale. The survey
indicated t h a t t h e property contained 1 1 . 4 6 a c r e s instead of
t h e 1 1 - 5 7 a c r e s r e p r e s e n t e d on t h e b u y - s e l l document. Parcel
consumsited the land purchase despite this .13.-acre deficiency . Parcel was first alerted to a problem in the legal
descr.ption of hi:: property in the f a l l o f 1980 when he
r e c e i v e d h i s t a x s t a t e m e n t which r e p r e s e n t e d h i s ownership o f
s l i g h t l y more t h a n 1 2 a c r c s . Af.trr' i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he di.scerr-
e r e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f s u r v e y d r a f t e d by Smith and c e r t i f i e d
l q r R a s t i n war; i n e r r o r . Ueseripti.on of t h e p r o p e r t y on th.e
defective s u r v e y commenced a t .tile c d q r o f t h e county road
( t h e s o u t h e r n bounciary) w h i c h was 30 f e e t n o r t h o f t h e t r u e
p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g , t h e c e n t e r Line o:f t h e county r i g h t - o f -
way . The actual. measurements confor~ned t o the true b o u n d a r i e s of t h e p r o p e r t y had t h e p r o p e r s t a r t i n g p o , i i ~ t been
rt?i'c?renced. The resu1.t 5-r; . t h a t a s t r i p o f land t h i r t y f e e t
wide and a p p r o x i m a t e l y seven hundred f e e t l o n g was i n c l u d e d
nn t h e n o r t h e r n edge of t h e p r o p e r t y , to which Myers d i d n o t
have t i t l e and could a o t c c o n v e y , Besirin d i d n o t s u p e r v i s e
Smith"; f i e l d work, nor d i d he c o u f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e
survey p r i o r t o h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
Minut: t h a t a r e a r c s e r v e d for t h e riqht-<.IS:-way, t h e a r e a
within the f e n c e c o n t a i n e d 10.86 a c r e s . Parcel filed an
a c t i o n t o h a v e t h e c o n t r a c t For deed reformed s o a s t o repre-'
s e n t t h e proper l e g a l description o f t h e l a n d he purchased
and show a r e d u c t i o n of t h e sa:Les p r i c e t o r e f l e c t t h e de-,
crease i n acreaqe. Parcel Eilc?d c l a i m s a g a i n s t bo.t.l) Myers
and t h e s u r v e y o r s , Bast in and S n i t h , f o r negli.gent m i s r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n of t h e t o t a l acreage. The d i s t r i c t judge denied
Parcel." damage cl.aims, but retluced t h e s a l e s p r i c e $ 1 , 5 0 0 .
A H . p a r t i e s were r e s p o n s i b l e for: indi.vi.dua1 c o s t s and a t t o r -
n e y ' s Fees.
The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s wheklier it was a n abuse o f d i s -
c r e t i o n f o r t-he D i s t r i c t Court t o o r d m e a c h p a r t y t o b e a r
h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s .
A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s a s t a t u t o r y righ'r. to c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o
75-10-101(3) and ( 5 1 , MCA, r;ince t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s t i t l e tc: real property whi.ch resulted in a n award o f $1,500. We
disagree. The s p e c j . f i c language of t h e st.atute provides:
"When c o s t s ,allowed, of c o u r s e , to plaintiff.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
am:iiuclo PARCEL,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, S - MERT.,IN W, MYERS, et. n i . , Defendants and Respondents.
APTTEA?, FROM: District C o u r r t of the T e n t h J u d i c i a l Di.s"Lrici:., In and for the Cnuni,y of Ferqns, The Honorable R. D. McPbilLips, Judge presiding.
F'or Aypel1an.t: Mark L. Stermitz, S t a n f o r d , Montana
For Respondents: . William E Berger , L e w i s t - o w n , Montana Hauge, Ober & Brown, fifxvr~" Montana
Suh~iitt:ed on Briefs: Nnv. 7 9 , 1984 Decided: December 2 8 , 1 9 8 4
."," Clerk Mr. Jiist i.ce Frank 1. Morrison, Jr. 7 , del i v e r e d t h e Opini.on of
t h e Court,
P a r c e l appea1.s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment. e n t e r e d
by tlhe D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i - a l D i s t r i c t denyinn;
him an award f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s .
A p p e l l a n t , J a c k Hugo P a r c e l , f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t on Febru-
ary 2 , 1981, r e g u e s t i n q r e f o r m a t i o n of a c o n t r a c t f o r deed
f o r hi.s p u r c h a s e of r e a l e s t a t e and also i . s s e r t i n y c l a i m s o f
fraud and negligent ntisreprosentation against the Myers,
seliers, a n d William Smith and Rona2.d F. Bastin, surveyors
responsible for the subject defective legal description.
Parcel claimed $10,000 i n clamaqes and $25,000 i n punitive
rlainagez; under his fraud c1ai.m. Bastin an(? Smith filed a
motion t.o d i s m i s s t h e f r a u d c l a i m ctgainst them. The t r i . a ?
court. d i s m i s s e d a p p e l l a n t ' s actiacm a g a i n s t t h e s u r v e y o r s w i t h
p r e j u d i c e when a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o respond t o t h i s n o t i o n t o
dismi.sc., Myers answered, c o u n - l - e r e l a i m e and cross-cIajmed
against Bastin arid Smith for indemnity. All motions to
d i s m i s s and motions f o r surnmary juclgment f i l e d by r e s p o n d e n t s
and t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s were d e n i e d ,
Thc a c t i o n was t r i e d t o t h c c o u r t on January 3 1 , 1983, Finclingis, conclusions and judpent thereon were filed on December 13, 1 9 8 3 , The d i s t r i c t judge reformed t h e c o n t r a c t
f o r deed i n the amount of $1,500, denied a l l o t h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Myers, o r d e r e d n l i p a r t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o s t s a n d
a t t o r n e y f e e s , h u t f a i l e d t o r u l e on khe t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n ,
P a r c e l a p p e a l s o n l y o n t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s .
Jack Parcel p~~rehased a parcel. of real estate From
Mer1i.n and Marcia Myers on o r a b o u t J u l y 9 , 1.979. The buy-
s e l l agreement described the property as "Merlin W. Myers
home cons:isti.ng of hoiise, shop and 1 1 . 5 7 a c r e s mol-e o r l e s s
inmiediately west o f Lewistown. " N e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e p u r c h a s e price and the conditioris of the buii.dings required three
b u y s e l l agreements t o be d r a f t e d b ~ $ f n r e h e F i n a l c o n t r a c t t
f o r deed was e x e c u t e d i n August 1 9 7 9 , No p u r c h a s e p r i c e p e r a c r e was e v e r t h e s u b j e c t o f nego-kist;.ons n o r were p e r a c r e
kerms p r i n t e d on t h e f a c e o f t h e f i n a l b u y - s e l l agreement o r
t h e r e s u l t a n t c o n t r a c t For deed.
Parcel required t h a t Myers have a new c c r t i f i . c a t e of
s u r v e y p r e p a r e d and rmcorded w i t h i n a reasonab1.e t i m e a f t e r
t h e c l o s i n g of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . Parcel's r e q u i r e m e n t of a
s u r v e y a s c o n d i t i o n of t h e s a l e , was t o a s s u r e him t h a t Myers
had clear title and ownership of the property within the
f e n c e s wlrich were r e p r e s e n t e d t o Parcel. a s t h e b o u n d a r i e s of
t h e l a n d he was p u r c h a s i n g . Smith completed t h e s u r v e y a f e w
days p r i o r t o t h e s i g n i n g of t h o c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d . Si.nce
Smith was unlicensed, Bastin certified the survey leqa1l.y
correct i n all. respects. Paroc:! confirmed t h a t t h e d e s c r i p -
tion on the s u r v e y matched the 1.egal. d e s c r i p t i o n on the
contract f o r deed p r i o r to closi-na t h e sale. The survey
indicated t h a t t h e property contained 1 1 . 4 6 a c r e s instead of
t h e 1 1 - 5 7 a c r e s r e p r e s e n t e d on t h e b u y - s e l l document. Parcel
consumsited the land purchase despite this .13.-acre deficiency . Parcel was first alerted to a problem in the legal
descr.ption of hi:: property in the f a l l o f 1980 when he
r e c e i v e d h i s t a x s t a t e m e n t which r e p r e s e n t e d h i s ownership o f
s l i g h t l y more t h a n 1 2 a c r c s . Af.trr' i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he di.scerr-
e r e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f s u r v e y d r a f t e d by Smith and c e r t i f i e d
l q r R a s t i n war; i n e r r o r . Ueseripti.on of t h e p r o p e r t y on th.e
defective s u r v e y commenced a t .tile c d q r o f t h e county road
( t h e s o u t h e r n bounciary) w h i c h was 30 f e e t n o r t h o f t h e t r u e
p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g , t h e c e n t e r Line o:f t h e county r i g h t - o f -
way . The actual. measurements confor~ned t o the true b o u n d a r i e s of t h e p r o p e r t y had t h e p r o p e r s t a r t i n g p o , i i ~ t been
rt?i'c?renced. The resu1.t 5-r; . t h a t a s t r i p o f land t h i r t y f e e t
wide and a p p r o x i m a t e l y seven hundred f e e t l o n g was i n c l u d e d
nn t h e n o r t h e r n edge of t h e p r o p e r t y , to which Myers d i d n o t
have t i t l e and could a o t c c o n v e y , Besirin d i d n o t s u p e r v i s e
Smith"; f i e l d work, nor d i d he c o u f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e
survey p r i o r t o h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n .
Minut: t h a t a r e a r c s e r v e d for t h e riqht-<.IS:-way, t h e a r e a
within the f e n c e c o n t a i n e d 10.86 a c r e s . Parcel filed an
a c t i o n t o h a v e t h e c o n t r a c t For deed reformed s o a s t o repre-'
s e n t t h e proper l e g a l description o f t h e l a n d he purchased
and show a r e d u c t i o n of t h e sa:Les p r i c e t o r e f l e c t t h e de-,
crease i n acreaqe. Parcel Eilc?d c l a i m s a g a i n s t bo.t.l) Myers
and t h e s u r v e y o r s , Bast in and S n i t h , f o r negli.gent m i s r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n of t h e t o t a l acreage. The d i s t r i c t judge denied
Parcel." damage cl.aims, but retluced t h e s a l e s p r i c e $ 1 , 5 0 0 .
A H . p a r t i e s were r e s p o n s i b l e for: indi.vi.dua1 c o s t s and a t t o r -
n e y ' s Fees.
The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s wheklier it was a n abuse o f d i s -
c r e t i o n f o r t-he D i s t r i c t Court t o o r d m e a c h p a r t y t o b e a r
h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s .
A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s a s t a t u t o r y righ'r. to c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o
75-10-101(3) and ( 5 1 , MCA, r;ince t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s t i t l e tc: real property whi.ch resulted in a n award o f $1,500. We
disagree. The s p e c j . f i c language of t h e st.atute provides:
"When c o s t s ,allowed, of c o u r s e , to plaintiff.
a judgment in - f a v o r in t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: his - c o s t s a r e a l l o w e d , o f c o u r s e , t o the p l a i n t i f f T o n - --. o . .
" 13) i n an a c t i o n f o r t h e r e c o v e r y of money o r damages, e x c l u s i v e o f i n t e r e s t , when plaintiff r e c o v e r s o v e r $50; ""(5 i n an a c t i o n which i.nvojl~ies t h e t i t l e o r possession o r r i g h t of possesr.ion of r e a l e s t a t e ." (emphasis added)
I n t h i . s c a s e , t h e "judgment i n h i s f a v o r " was a $ 1 , 5 0 0 r e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e o o n t ~ m c tpurc11a:;e p r i c e , and n o t an a c t i o n
i.nvolvi.ng the t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r a darnage a c t i o n .
Appellant c o r r e c t l y argues t h a t a l l o c a t i o n o f c o s t s are l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h o s e a c t i o n s
not. mentioned i n t; 25-10-lo:!, MCB. A award o f c o s t s i n an n
a c t i o n t o reform a c o n t r a c t i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y . We f i n d no a b u s e o f t h e D i s r r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o o r d e r all. p a r t i e s
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own c o s t s 3nd a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . Appellant fortifies his argumeat with the contention
thxk s i n c e he i s t.he p r e v a i l i n g pa.rty, c o s t s and a t % o r n e y s fees a r e recoverable. The general, r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t
absent a statutory o r contractual provision, a t t o r n e y :fees a r e not recoverable, S L i t e r s v. Lee ( ? . 9 8 2 ) , 197 Nant. 182,
6 4 1 F. 21? 1175. Furthermore, t - h i s Court r e c e n t l y held that
t h e r e i s no p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y where b o t h p a r t i e s g a i n a victo- ry hut: a l s o s u f f e r a i o s s . Rsrlidsen v, Taylor (1984), 6 8 5 P . 2 ~ 1 354, 357, 4 1 %.Rep. 1 90, 1 4 9 3 . P a r c e l p r e v a i l e d on rcforsnation of contrack but l o s t on a1.1 h e al.?.egations
zqainst: Piiyer and t h e s u r v e y o r s . Li.kewise, Nyer won on t h e
f r a u d and n e g l i g e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o l n a c t i o n s a g a i n s t him,
a n d c o n c u r r e n t l y l o s t on the i s s u e o f r e d u c t i o n o f t h e pix-
rice, The t r i a l c o u r t " o r d e r t h a t ea.cl.1 p a r t y b e a r
h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s was p r o p e r .
The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t make a r u l i n q on t h e t h i r d party action tind there i s no iudgrnent for this Court to
review. W e remand f o r a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l i a b i l i t y
of t h i r d p a r t y defendant t o t h i r d p a r t y p l a h t i f f , Judgment o f t h e District Court r e f o r m i n g p u r c h a s e price by a $1,500 r e d u c t i o n and o r d e r i n g all p a r t i e s to b e a r costs
and attorney's fees i s a f f i r m & . Liability o f t h i r d party