No. 8 3 - 5 6 0 . b IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985
JACK HUGO PARCEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- MERLIN 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 of John R. Christensen, Stanford, Montana
For Respondents: William E , Berger; Wilkins & Berger, Lewistown, Montana Hauqe, Ober & Brown, Havre, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: Nov. 29, 1984 Decided: March 20, 1985
Clerk Mr. 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.
Myers, respondent/cross a:?pell.ant., appeals from that
porti.cm of the Ui.si-.ri.ct Court judgment. wli:?.ch reduceil 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 a g a i n s t Myers f o r r e f o r m a t i o n
of the contract f o r c?red c o n t a i n i n g n d e f e c t i v e l e g a l de-
scription, 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." sappeal From
d e n i a l of 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
p u b l i s h e d i n Parcel. v , Myers (Mont. 19841 - P.2d 41
S t .Rep. 2426, T h i s supplemerit~al d e c i s i o n d i s c u s s e s Myers'
cross appeal.
Jack P a r c e l purchased appiroximatc)I.y el.even a c r e s from
M~?r1.i.r and Marcia Myers in 1.979. The contract for deed
required Myers to have n survey of the subject property
p r e p a r e d and a c e r t i 5 i c a t e o f :survey r e c o r d e d . 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 t h e real, e s t a t e re-
su2tec.i From the surveyor using the 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. This mistake shi.Fted the otherwise
correct description of the land thirty 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 f o o t wi.de s t r i p o f l a n d which t h e
Myers did not have merchantable title to convey. The
district eourt judyment reformed t h e cowtract t o c o r r e c t l y
descrille the land conveyed and 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 is:
I, Whether the sale of the property was "j.n g r o s s s '
barrinq appellank" enti.tlement 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-
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 eit
o r a reply brief. ?'ethnically, t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be r e s o l v e d
by del:aul.t 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 t o any
reduction i n t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e . 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 t h i s issue
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 . Although
t h e s p e c i f i c t.erm "i.n g r o s s " i s not used 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 Huges a t l e a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) t h e s . They walked t h e 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 t h i s unnnhi.guons d e s c r i p t i o n o f a bulk s a l e of
real estate, the trial court contradicted well.-establ.ished
principles of law and ordered a $1,500 reduction in the
o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t purchase p r i c e
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
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."
We adopt the rationale of the Arizona 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 .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
No. 8 3 - 5 6 0 . b IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985
JACK HUGO PARCEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- MERLIN 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 of John R. Christensen, Stanford, Montana
For Respondents: William E , Berger; Wilkins & Berger, Lewistown, Montana Hauqe, Ober & Brown, Havre, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: Nov. 29, 1984 Decided: March 20, 1985
Clerk Mr. 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.
Myers, respondent/cross a:?pell.ant., appeals from that
porti.cm of the Ui.si-.ri.ct Court judgment. wli:?.ch reduceil 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 a g a i n s t Myers f o r r e f o r m a t i o n
of the contract f o r c?red c o n t a i n i n g n d e f e c t i v e l e g a l de-
scription, 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." sappeal From
d e n i a l of 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
p u b l i s h e d i n Parcel. v , Myers (Mont. 19841 - P.2d 41
S t .Rep. 2426, T h i s supplemerit~al d e c i s i o n d i s c u s s e s Myers'
cross appeal.
Jack P a r c e l purchased appiroximatc)I.y el.even a c r e s from
M~?r1.i.r and Marcia Myers in 1.979. The contract for deed
required Myers to have n survey of the subject property
p r e p a r e d and a c e r t i 5 i c a t e o f :survey r e c o r d e d . 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 t h e real, e s t a t e re-
su2tec.i From the surveyor using the 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. This mistake shi.Fted the otherwise
correct description of the land thirty 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 f o o t wi.de s t r i p o f l a n d which t h e
Myers did not have merchantable title to convey. The
district eourt judyment reformed t h e cowtract t o c o r r e c t l y
descrille the land conveyed and 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 is:
I, Whether the sale of the property was "j.n g r o s s s '
barrinq appellank" enti.tlement 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-
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 eit
o r a reply brief. ?'ethnically, t h e m a t t e r c o u l d be r e s o l v e d
by del:aul.t 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 t o any
reduction i n t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e . 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 t h i s issue
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 . Although
t h e s p e c i f i c t.erm "i.n g r o s s " i s not used 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 Huges a t l e a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) t h e s . They walked t h e 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 t h i s unnnhi.guons d e s c r i p t i o n o f a bulk s a l e of
real estate, the trial court contradicted well.-establ.ished
principles of law and ordered a $1,500 reduction in the
o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t purchase p r i c e
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
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."
We adopt the rationale of the Arizona 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 , The o p i n i o n o e s n o t ex-
p l a i n t h e reformat.i.on of 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 Dis- trict C o u r t ' s decision reducing the original purchase price