Case Title: MARTIN v RANDONO

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1978-01-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13349 I N THE S U P R E M E COURT O F THE STATE O F MONTANA W. D. (DON) MARTIN, et ux. , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, GENE R A N D O N O , e t ux. and GREAT FALLS FOREST P R O D U C T S INC. Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Peter G. Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Stimatz and Engel, Butte, Montana Joseph Engel, I11 argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: Knight, Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montana Conde F. Mackay argued, Anaconda, Montana Submitted: March 17, 1977 Decided: J m 1 0 1978 ,JAB 2 f ? 't!j'fe Filed: M r . Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal from a judgment of the District Court, Lewis and Clark County, decreeing that p l a i n t i f f W. D. (Don) Martin, e t ux. (Martins) were entitled t o 22 acres of land by virtue of adverse possession under claim of title. The land involved i s located seven miles east of Lincoln, Montana. It consists of 22 acres of wooded forest land. A saw- m i l l was located on the property along with several other structures and was operated by the Pappin Construction Co. u n t i l 1964. Don Martin was employed by Pappin as the foreman of the sawing crew. Since 1959, Martin also maintained h i s family residence, a mobile home, partially on the land i n dis- pute. In 1964, the Great Falls Forest Products, Inc., ( a Randono family owned corporation) acqbired the land and also took over the logging and sawmill operations. The family corpora- tion retained employees from the Pappin Construction Co., in- cluding Don Martin. The art ins' t r a i l e r home stayed i n the same place. In the spring 1965 the Great Falls Forest Products, Inc. finishing m i l l burned down and went out of business; as a result very shortly thereafter, the logging and sawmill operation a t Lincoln terminated. It i s clear that up t o t h i s point Martins acknowledge they were on the land involved with the permission of the Randono family corporation. Don Martin t e s t i f i e d that in l a t e 1965 or early 1971 he talked with Gene Randono, the president of the family corporation, and Randono asked him t o pay $50 per month rent as a condition t o remaining on the property with h i s t r a i l e r home. This testimony was given a t the t r i a l : "Q.* * * M r . Martin, a f t e r the termination of the operation of the m i l l by Gray, did anything take place between you and any member of the Defendant corporation relative t o your presence on the premises? "A. Yes. I talked t o Gene Randono. He informed m e that i f I was going t o remain on the property I would pay $50 a month rent. I informed him I would not. I considered the ground a s mine .I1 I n i t s findings the t r i a l court relied on t h i s statement exclusively as being a sufficient declaration of intent t o adversely possess the property. O n the other hand, W. A. Randono, the vice president of the family corporation (who a t the time of the alleged statement was only 17 or 18 years of age) t e s t i f i e d that Gene Randono orally permitted Martin t o keep h i s t r a i l e r on the land i n exchange for Martin's services as a watchman over the property and the struc- tures located on the property. In any event, Gene Randono and h i s wife Carrol, both defendants i n t h i s action, l e f t soon thereafter t o live i n Nevada and apparently remained there. After the sawmill was closed Martin acknowedged that for a short time he performed services as a watchman for Gene Randono. Property taxes assessed upon the property by Lewis and Clark County f e l l delinquent for the years 1964 through 1970. The property was struck off t o the county. I n January 1971 Don Martin and J. P. Mulcare (not a party t o t h i s action) paid $2,670.14 to the Lewis and Clark County Treasurer and received a c e r t i f i c a t e of assignment for the delinquent taxes. Martin and Mulcare together had been involved i n previous property acquisitions. Later, Martin paid Mulcare's one-half of the tax assignment and Mulcare delived a quit claim deed t o Martin. During direct examination a t t r i a l Don Martin was asked why he did not pay the taxes each year as they accrued. H e answered: A . I didn' t want to a l e r t them [the Randonos] t o the fact. I figured they should know i f the taxes were due. They should be paid. I f they weren't paid, I wanted it l e f t quiet and when five years was up I figured I would take it." After the sawmill closed Don Martin and h i s son Frank had a conversation concerning where Don Martin was going to live. Testifying for h i s father, Frank replied to a question on direct examination concerning whether Don Martin ever told Frank he was attempting to obtain ownership of the property: "A. Well, when I asked him where he was going to l i v e , he said he was going to stay there and see i f he couldn't get it for back taxes l a t e r on i n the future sometime ." During the summer 1971, a f t e r Don Martin had taken the tax assignment, a cabin which was approximately 150 feet from the Martin t r a i l e r home, mysteriously burned t o the ground. O n May 31, 1972, the family corporation redeemed the tax assignment by paying $2,956.83 t o the Lewis and Clark County Treasurer. The county treasurer sent a refund t o Don Martin but apparently Martin refused t o cash the check, claiming the land belonged t o him. Presumably the county treasurer s t i l l holds the money i n t r u s t for Martin. Soon a f t e r t h i s redemption the family corporation tried to s e l l the land to a Missoula land speculator, but they were accosted by Martin who claimed the land belonged to him and ordered them off the land. The t o t a l acreage of the land involved was approximately 22 acres and there was a standing fence on one side only. The only portion enclosed was around the Martin t r a i l e r home. The Martins did not put the entire 22 acres t o their own use by either cultivating the land o r enclosing it. They did however, occasionally pasture a few tethered horses on the land. To f a c i l i t a t e access to their t r a i l e r home the Martins b u i l t a driveway. They also cleaned up part of the property by re- moving car bodies and dead trees. Other than t h i s the land remained unimproved. There was significant deterioration t o the buildings on the land and to the fence. It i s undisputed that W. A. Randono came frequently to the land during the years involved and especially during the summer and on weekends. Frequently he would bring h i s brothers and friends with him from the University of Montana. Later h i s wife also came to the property on many occasions. Frequently they held parties i n the cabin and on one occasion in 1969, t h i s i r r i t a t e d the Martins t o the extent they called the sheriff and had him come to check out the situation. The deputy t e s t i - fied as to h i s reason forming to the cabin: "A. One night I received a c a l l from M r . Martin that there were people i n a cabin very close to h i s property who were apparently moving in. They were having parties and a l o t of noise and he re- quested that something be done about it so he could get h i s sleep a t night." After talking to the occupants of the cabin, the sheriff returned to Don Martin and reported t h i s conversation: "A. * * H e [W .A. Randono] said there was no problem that the cabin belonged to h i s uncle [Gene Randono]. So I have no way of determining proof of ownership of property, so a t that point I returned to M r . Martin and told him what I found out and i f anything was to proceed from there, it would probably have to be a c i v i l suit." During t h i s entire period the Martins admitted the Randonos and their friends used the cabin and stayed there for various periods of time. While the relationship was not always the b e s t between the Martins and the young Randonos, Martins never d i r e c t l y t o l d the Randonos they owned the land and must g e t permission t o use the land and stay i n the cabins. During d i r e c t examination Don Martin admitted t h a t he had no objection t o Randono and h i s friends staying a t the cabin and t h a t he allowed them t o stay there because: "A. * * * I figured it e a s i e r t o not s t i r them up and cause problems and I d i d n ' t want t o a l e r t them t o the f a c t t h a t I had m y mind up ( s i c ) I was going t o accumulate t h i s ground." During the time period involved Ralph Randono an attorney who was a l s o a l i s t e d o f f i c e r of the family corporation, t e s t i f i e d he v i s i t e d the land involved on several occasions and was never t o l d by the Martins they were claiming the land. He stopped i n Lincoln on several occasions t o see the Martins and it was always a friendly relationship, they always had coffee brewing. I n April 1971, some three months a f t e r Don Martin paid the taxes and had taken an assignment, Ralph Randono l i s t e d the property with S o r r e l l Realty Co. of Great F a l l s . He took the r e a l t o r on the land, showed him the boundaries and Don Martin did nothing. Later i n 1971, Ralph Randono, M r . S o r r e l l and a prospective buyer went on the land.. and Don Martin did nothing. During t h i s e n t i r e period between 1964 and 1971 Ralph Randono knew of no s i t u a t i o n t h a t would alarm him t h a t anyone was seeking the property by adverse possession. I n May 1972, W. A. Randono learned Don Martin had taken a t a x assignment on the land, and he then redeemed the land by paying a.11 the back taxes, together with i n t e r e s t and penalties. Shortly a f t e r the t a x redemption, W. A. Randono and a Missoula land speculator went on the land f o r the purpose of arranging a s a l e t o the speculator. They were then confronted by Don Martin who ordered them off the land, claiming the land was h i s . Several months l a t e r Don Martin f i l e d a q u i e t t i t l e action claiming adverse possession under claim of t i t l e . The Randono family corporation counter sued claiming damages f o r wrongful withholding of property and damages f o r the l o s t s a l e t o the Missoula speculator. The D i s t r i c t Court decreed t i t l e i n Don Martin, and t h i s appeal followed. I n addition t o t h e i r claim the court was i n e r r o r i n decreeing adverse possession, the Randonos a l s o claim the court should have granted damages f o r wrongful. withholding of property and f o r the l o s t s a l e . The Martins concede they would be l i a b l e f o r damages f o r wrongful withholding of property were it not f o r the decree of adverse possession. W e conclude the Martins did not e s t a b l i s h adverse possession. The Martins sought adverse possession under an occupancy t h a t was admittedly permissive, but which they claim they converted i n t o one t h a t was h o s t i l e . I n Price v. Western Life Insurance Co. 513, (19441, 115 Mont. 509,/514, 146 P.2d 165, t h i s Court recognized t h a t one may convert a permissive possession i n t o a h o s t i l e one but " I t o make it so there must be a repudiation of the permissive possession * * * and the repudiation must be brought home t o the owner by actual notice * * *.'" I n Price, w e s t a t e d the burden t o overcome permissive use, quoting with approval from Lindokken v. Paulson, (1937), 224 W i s . 470, 272 N.W. 453,455, t o be: "'The law is very r i g i d with respect t o the f a c t t h a t a permissive use i n the beginning can be changed i n t o one which i s h o s t i l e and adverse only by the most unequivocal conduct on the p a r t of the user. The rule is t h a t the evidence of adverse possession must be positive, must be s t r i c t l y con- strued against the person claiming a prescriptive r i g h t , and t h a t every reasonable intendment should be made i n favor of the true owner. 111 Whether one is seeking t o convert permissive possession i n t o a prescriptive r i g h t or i n t o one of outright ownership, we see no difference i n the burden the claimant must bear. Using t h i s r u l e a s a y a r d s t k k the Martins have f a i l e d i n t h e i r burden. The D i s t r i c t Court i n addition t o concluding t h a t the Martins had f u l f i l l e d the requirements of possession f o r 5 years and payment of taxes, section 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947, held: "* * * t h a t t h e i r possession has been a c t u a l , v i s i b l e , exclusive, h o s t i l e and continuous f o r the f u l l period necessary t o create a bar under the s t a t u t e of limita- t ions. 11 These requirements of section 93-2513 must be proven t o e s t a b l i s h a claim of adverse possession. Smith v. Duff, (1909), 39 Mont. 374, & P . 981; Ferguson v. Standley, (1931), 89 Mont. 489, 300 P. 245; Townsend v. Koukol, (1966), 148 Mont. 1, 416 P.2d 532. To convert the o r i g i n a l permissive possession i n t o one of a h o s t i l e claim the t r i a l court r e l i e d exclusively on the s t a t e - ment made by Martin when he claimed he refused t o pay rent t o Gene Randono and considered the land a s h i s own. Even assuming t h i s statement t o be t r u e , it is a t b e s t equivocal, and c e r t a i n l y cannot be construed t o be a statement of i n t e n t t o possess and own the e n t i r e 22 acres. The statement was: "I informed him I would not [pay r e n t ] . I considered the ground a s mine." I f rent was requested from Martin it could have been f o r the rent of the piece of land on which the t r a i l e r home was located. It i s not c l e a r from t h i s testimony t h a t Martin actually made a s t a t e - ment t o Gene Randono t h a t he was claiming ownership of the land. Further, the conduct and statements of the Martins from 1965 through 1971, f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h the r e q u i s i t e elements of adverse possession. It appears the Martins were relying more on t h e i r misconceived application of the law. To them possession, plus ultimately paying the back taxes f o r f i v e years, was s u f f i - c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r claim t o adverse possession. That i s not enough. - 8 - While it might be argued t h e i r possession was a c t u a l and v i s i b l e , and perhaps even continuous, it was not exclusive and h o s t i l e . Don Martin's testimony demonstrates he did not object t o the Randonos coming onto the land, l i v i n g i n the cabins, and generally coming and going a s they pleased. H i s reason f o r not objecting b e l i e s any i n t e n t t o take the property by t r u e adverse possession. He t e s t i f i e d he did not object because he did not want t o put the Randonos on notice of h i s i n t e n t t o l a t e r "accunulate t h i s ground." He further t e s t i f i e d he did not pay the back taxes year by year a s they accumulated because he did not want t o put the Randonos on notice of h i s i n t e n t t o acquire the land i n the future. By these admissions t h e Martins c l e a r l y f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e i r possession was exclusive and h o s t i l e . From the inception of the f i r s t claim of r i g h t t o the land through the e n t i r e period required f o r adverse possession, it was required t h a t the Martins1 conduct be continuously h o s t i l e and exclusive t o the true owners. Here, the possession was purposely nonhostile and nonexclusive. It i s axiomatic t h a t adverse possession does not allow the possessors t o mask t h e i r conduct and acquire t h e land by hiding t h e i r t r u e intentions from the owners of record. Adverse possession under claim of t i t l e i s limited s p e c i f i c a l l y by sections 93-2510 and 93-2511, R.C.M. 1947. The t r i a l court i n making i t s findings and conclusions did not determine i f these s t a t u t e s had been f u l f i l l e d . Section 93-2510 provides t h a t i f the claim i s not under a written instrument, judgment, o r decree "* * * the land so actually occupied, and no other, i s deemed t o have been held adversely." The companion s t a t u t e , section 93-2511, further l i m i t s adverse possession by providing t h a t where the claim i s not under a written instrument, judgment, o r decree land is deemed t o have been possessed and occupied i n the following cases only: "1. Where it has been protected by a substantial inclosure; "2. Where it has been usually cultivated o r improved ." Here, it appears the land a t one time was surrounded by a fence on a l l sides. However, during the period of the alleged adverse possession, the fence and other structures on the property deteriorated significantly. A t the end of t h e alleged prescrip- t i v e period a fence existed only on one>si.de of the property. One of the cabins was destroyed by f i r e and the other structures were damaged by vandals, and thieves carried off much of the personal property within the buildings. The land was never cultivated and the alleged improvements consisted of moving s i x o r more c a r bodies ( i t was never established who owned the c a r bodies); cutting and removing of dead t r e e s near the t r a i l e r home; building a driveway f o r e a s i e r access t o the t r a i l e r home; and, i n general, cleaning up the place. Suffice it t o say, t h i s evidence did not f u l f i l l the requirements of the s t a t u t e s . The Martins concede l i a b i l i t y f o r wrongful withholding of the premises, i f t h e i r claim of adverse possession i s not upheld. However, they maintain t h a t i n such event the claim of damages f o r l o s t p r o f i t s was not proven. Because the t r i a l court upheld the claim of adverse possession, it did not make findings o r conclusions on e i t h e r of the counterclaims. Accordingly, the amount of damages f o r wrongful withholding must s t i l l be determined by the t r i a l court and it must a l s o e n t e r findings and conclusions on the Randonos' counterclaim of damages because of a l o s t sale. W e reverse the judgment of the D i s t r i c t Court and remand t h i s cause f o r further proceedings consistent with t h i s Opinion. \ d & ( & & - ".. Chief J u s t i c e