Parcel v. Myers

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Parcel v. Myers. Read the opinion of the Court — 214 Mont. 220 →

Montana Supreme Court·Decided December 28, 1984·No. 83-560·Published

Opinion

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