Case Title: BAILS v WHEELER RICHARDSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-02-04T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13322 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA RICHARD J. BAILS and PATRICIA J. BAILS, husband and wife, plaintiffs and Appellants, NORMAN C. WHEELER and V7ILLIAP4 RICHARDSON, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District Honorable W. W. Lessley Judge presiding Counsel of Record : For Appellants: Berg, Angel, Andriolo and Morgan, Bozeman, Montana Ben E. Berg argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Landoe and Gary, Bozeman, Montana Hjalmar Landoe argued, Bozeman, Montana Bennett and Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman Bennett, Jr. araued and Lyman Bennett, I11 appeared, Bozeman, ~ontana Filed: Submitted: January 10, 1977 M r . ~ u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This i s a n a c t i o n f o r damages by t h e purchaser of a ranch a g a i n s t two r e a l estate agents based on alleged fraudulent r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s whereby he was induced t o e n t e r i n t o t h e purchase c o n t r a c t . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t of G a l l a t i n County entered summary judgment f o r defendants. P l a i n t i f f purchaser appeals. A synopsis of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n forming t h e b a s i s of t h i s s u i t appears i n our opinion i n B a i l s v. Gar, Mont . I P. 2d , 33 St.Rep. 1 2 5 6 . That c a s e w a s a s u i t by t h e pur- chaser of t h e ranch a g a i n s t t h e seller based on a l l e g e d f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s inducing t h e purchaser t o e n t e r i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t ; t h e i n s t a n t case i s a s u i t by t h e purchaser a g a i n s t t h e two real e s t a t e agents based upon s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s . W e vacate t h e summary judgment here f o r t h e same reasons we vacated supra, it i n B a i l s v. G a r / v i z . t h a t t h e r e a r e genuine i s s u e s of m a t e r i a l f a c t precluding summary judgment. The a l l e g e d f a l s e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s i n t h e i n s t a n t s u i t a r e t h a t t h e ranch c o n t a i n s 5,200 deeded a c r e s ; t h a t it would r a i s e and s u s t a i n 400 animal u n i t s ; t h a t t h e r e w e r e 300 a c r e s of hay land which produced 900 t o n s of hay per year; t h a t t h e r e were 60 acres of c r o p b n d which produced 2 1 bushels of g r a i n per acre; and t h a t t h e property would produce an income of a t least $80,000 per year. A so-called "brochure" appears t o contain t h e p r i n c i p a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s on which t h e i n s t a n t c a s e is based, and t h e r e a l source of f a c t u a l i s s u e s . It i s both i d e n t i f i e d a s "Exhibit A" attached t o t h e complaint which contains t h e f i r s t four represen- t a t i o n s complained o f , and a t one p o i n t it i s r e f e r r e d t o by a defense a t t o r n e y a s t h e "missing brochure". There i s much con- fusion surrounding it. B a i l s says he received a "brochure", apparently from Richardson, describing t h e ranch and containing most of t h e misrepresentations complained o f . Although he does n o t iden- t i f y "Exhibit A" as t h e document he received, he says it is very s i m i l a r t o it. Richardson says he received t h e "brochure" from Wheeler and simply relayed it t o B a i l s . Wheeler argues Richardson must have changed it because B a i l s does n o t i d e n t i f y t h e one Wheeler s e n t a s t h e one he received. These c o n f l i c t i n g c o n t e n t i o n s concerning t h e "brochure" t o g e t h e r with our d i s c u s s i o n i n B a i l s v. Gar, supra, i n d i c a t e i s s u e s of f a c t precluding summary judgment. A s t o t h e f i f t h r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , defendants argue t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t h e ranch would produce $80,000 income is a n opinion and n o t a c t i o n a b l e a s fraud. This r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ap- p a r e n t l y came o u t of a d i s c u s s i o n among t h e p a r t i e s while B a i l s was being shown t h e ranch. B a i l s says Richardson s t a t e d t h e ranch would produce $100,000 income and Wheeler reduced t h a t f i g u r e t o $80,000. B a i l s says he believed t h e s e men t o be honest and t r u s t e d them. A l l p a r t i e s c i t e t h e following r u l e as c o n t r o l l i n g : " * * * I f t h e p a r t y expressing t h e opinion possesses s u p e r i o r knowledge, such a s would reasonably j u s t i f y t h e conclusion t h a t h i s opinion c a r r i e s with it t h e implied a s s e r t i o n t h a t he knows t h e f a c t s which j u s t i f y it, h i s statement i s a c t i o n - a b l e i f he knows t h a t he does n o t honestly e n t e r - t a i n t h e opinion because it is c o n t r a r y t o t h e f a c t s . " Como Orchard Land Co. v. Markham, 54 Mont. 438, 443, 171 P. 274. The opinion of t h e Court i n Como continues: "So, l i k e w i s e , a n opinion may be s o blended with f a c t s t h a t it amounts t o a statement of f a c t s . " W e hold t h e income r e p r e s e n t a t i o n may be a c t i o n a b l e with- i n e i t h e r of t h e above r u l e s depending on determination of i s s u e s o f f a c t . I n d i c a t i o n s a r e t h e r e a l e s t a t e brokers had s u p e r i o r knowledge of ranching and one of them had s u p e r i o r knowledge of t h e p a r t i c u l a r ranch i n question. A c a s h flow e s t i m a t e had been prepared t h a t year i n d i c a t i n g a much lower income. For t h e foregoing reasons, t h e summary judgment i s vacated and t h e cause remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , G a l l a t i n County, f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s opinion. J u s t i c e