Case Title: HOPKINS v SCOTTIE HOMES INC

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-03-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 14442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA - GERALD F. HOPKINS and MARY M. HOPKINS, Plaintiffs and Respondents, SCOTTIE HOMES, INC., a Corporation, Chief Industries, Inc., a Corporation, and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GLASGOW, MONTANA, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Robert Hurly and Paul Hoffmann, Glasgow, Montana Harrison, Loendorf, Poston and James T. Harrison, Sr., Helena, Montana James T. Harrison Sr., argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Ask and Pratt, Roundup, Montana Thomas M. Ask argued, Roundup, Montana Anderson, Symmes, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull & Jones, Billings, Montana - Submitted: February 2, 1979 Decided: M R 2 cm M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s an appeal by defendants, S c o t t i e Homes, Inc., and F i r s t National Bank of Glasgow, from an order of t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Mussel- s h e l l County, denying t h e i r motion f o r a change of venue. P l a i n t i f f s Gerald and Mary Hopkins purchased a new "Bonavilla" mobile home from defendant S c o t t i e Homes, Inc., on June 1, 1976. They executed a s e c u r i t y agreement t o finance t h e balance of t h e purchase p r i c e , and t h e s e c u r i t y agreement was assigned by defendant S c o t t i e Homes, Inc., t o defendant F i r s t National Bank of Glasgow. The mobile home w a s delivered t o and s e t up on p l a i n t i f f s ' property near Roundup, Montana. Within a few months t h e roof of t h e mobile home began t o leak whenever it rained causing s u b s t a n t i a l damage t o t h e home's i n t e r i o r . P l a i n t i f f s n o t i f i e d defendant S c o t t i e Homes, Inc., of t h e problem and a l s o defendant Chief Indus- tries, Inc., t h e manufacturer of t h e mobile home. After numerous letters, phone c a l l s , and t h e t h r e a t of l e g a l a c t i o n , t h e roof of t h e mobile home was reshingled during t h e summer of 1977, b u t t h e problem p e r s i s t e d . When plain- t i f f s n o t i f i e d defendants t h a t t h e r e p a i r work had n o t cured t h e d e f e c t s , defendants answered t h a t t h e warranty period had expired and with it t h e i r obligation. This prompted p l a i n t i f f s t o give defendants a second n o t i c e of r e c i s s i o n , c a n c e l l a t i o n and revocation, as they had done p r i o r t o having t h e roof repaired t h e previous summer. On January 28, 1978, p l a i n t i f f Gerald Hopkins climbed on top of t h e roof t o t r y t o d i v e r t t h e flow of water t h a t w a s s t i l l running i n t o t h e home. Because i c e had formed on t h e r o o f , he slipped and i n j u r e d h i s back. P l a i n t i f f s t h e r e a f t e r brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking: " [ I ] c a n c e l l a t i o n of purchase and s e c u r i t y agreements and of balances due on purchase of a mobile home, [2] t h e removal of t h e mobile home from t h e i r land, [3] refund of a l l pay- ments they had made on t h e i r mobile home pur- chase, [4] damages f o r breach of c o n t r a c t regarding purchase of t h e mobile home, and [5] damages f o r back i n j u r i e s a l l e g e d l y suf- f e r e d by one p l a i n t i f f when he f e l l o f f t h e i c y roof of t h e mobile home." The a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l District, Musselshell County, t h e county i n which p l a i n t i f f s r e s i d e and i n which t h e mobile home is located. Defendants S c o t t i e Homes, Inc., and F i r s t National Bank of Glasgow moved f o r a change of venue t o Valley County, t h e county i n which each defendant's place of business i s located. The s o l e i s s u e f o r review by t h i s Court i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n denying defendant's motion f o r change of venue. This Court has held t h a t " [ t l h e general r u l e governing venue i n c i v i l a c t i o n s i s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s h a l l be t r i e d i n t h e county i n which t h e defendant r e s i d e s a t t h e commence- ment of t h e action." McGregor v. Svare (1968), 151 Mont. 520, 523, 445 P.2d 571, 573. The general r u l e with i t s exceptions i s c o d i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 25-2-101, 25-2-102, and 25-2-108 MCA, which pro- v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : ". . . t h e a c t i o n s h a l l be t r i e d i n t h e county i n which t h e defendants, o r any of them, may r e s i d e a t t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n . . . Actions upon c o n t r a c t s m a y be t r i e d in the county which t h e contracf-was --- t o be performed, and a c t i o n s f o r t o r t s in t h e county where the .. , - s i s added.) t o r t was committed . . . " (Empna: This Court has s t a t e d t h a t t h e r u l e with r e s p e c t t o t h e performance exception i s " t h a t t h e p l a c e of performance must be evident e i t h e r by ( a ) t h e express terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , o r (b) by necessary implication t h a t a county o t h e r than t h a t of t h e defendant's residence i s intended t o be t h e county of performance." Brown v. F i r s t Federal Savings and Loan Assn. (1964), 1 4 4 Mont. 149, 153, 394 P.2d 1017, 1019. Neither p a r t y seeks t o demonstrate t h e place of per- formance by t h e express t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , and s o t h i s Court must decide whether a county o t h e r than t h a t of defen- d a n t s ' residence i s intended t o be t h e county of performance by necessary implication. I n determining t h i s , t h e Court may consider t h e c o n t r a c t - and p l a i n t i f f s ' supporting a f f i d a v i t submitted with t h e i r memorandum i n opposition t o change of venue. S t a t e ex rel. I n t e r s t a t e Lumber Co. v. District Court (1918), 54 Mont. 602, 608, 172 P. 1030, 1033. When a f f i d a v i t s supplied by one of t h e p a r t i e s with r e s p e c t t o t h e motion f o r change of p l a c e of t r i a l are uncontradicted, t h e statements of f a c t s s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n must be taken a s t r u e . F r a s e r v. Clark (1954), 128 Mont. 160, 173, 273 P.2d 105, 1 1 2 . Defendants argue t h a t t h e only continuing performance contemplated by t h e p a r t i e s w a s t h e payment of i n s t a l l m e n t s t o t h e bank i n Glasgow. P l a i n t i f f s , i n t h e i r a f f i d a v i t , say t h a t d e l i v e r y of t h e mobile home t o Musselshell County was a t a l l t i m e s contemplated by t h e p a r t i e s ; t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had no c o n t a c t with t h e bank a t any t i m e ; t h a t t h e p l a c e of performance was where t h e home was d e l i v e r e d and set-up; and t h a t t h e proper venue f o r t h i s a c t i o n is Musselshell County i f one considers t h e convenience of t h e witnesses. I n Hardenburgh v. Hardenburgh (1944), 115 Mont. 469, 478, 146 P.2d 151, 154, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "Agreement must be c l e a r . A m e r e d i r e c t i o n by t h e s e l l e r a s t o t h e place of payment i s n o t suf- f i c i e n t , nor can a promise t o r e m i t t o cover t h e purchase p r i c e be sued upon by t h e s e l l e r i n t h e county of t h e p o i n t t o which t h e remittance i s t o be made." This Court, i n Brown v. F i r s t Federal Savings & Loan Assn. (1964), 1 4 4 Mont. 149, 154, 394 P.2d 1017, 1020, reviewed a number of c a s e s involving venue questions looking f o r a common element. The Court s t a t e d t h a t " [ i l n a l l of t h e s e c a s e s t h e county of a c t i v i t y , a s r e f l e c t e d by t h e - terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , w a s deemed t h e p l a c e of performance." (Emphasis added.) The c o n t r a c t i n t h e i n s t a n t case does expressly provide t h a t "[c]ustomer w i l l pay S c o t t i e Homes f o r Blocking w a t e r and sewer hookup," a c t i v i t y which would n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n Musselshell County. It should be noted t h a t s e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 25-2-102 MCA, provides f o r a t o r t exception i n ad- d i t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a c t performance exception. I n t h e i n s t a n t case, p l a i n t i f f s have a l l e g e d t o r t i o u s conduct by defendants i n Musselshell County r e s u l t i n g i n physical i n j u r i e s . This a l l e g a t i o n , on i t s f a c e , when considered with t h e a l l e g a t i o n s regarding performance of t h e c o n t r a c t , a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o uphold t h e determination of t h e D i s t r i c t Court t h a t proper venue f o r t h i s a c t i o n i s i n Musselshell County. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: / I %A$. Chief J u s t i c e %Lu-c& M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d i s s e n t i n g : I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e reasoning of t h e m a j o r i t y a s it concerns t h e "county of a c t i v i t y " and u s i n g t h e c a s e of Brown v. F i r s t Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n., supra, a s a u t h o r i t y . The " t o r t exception" i n s e c t i o n 93-2904, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 25-2-102 MCA, i n m y view, c l e a r l y d i d n o t i n t e n d t o permit a f a l l from a roof t o be a t t a c h e d t o a c o n t r a c t a c t i o n f o r t h e purpose of venue.