Case Title: HORACEK v HUDSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-08-05T00:00:00Z

Document:
Na. 12757 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 STANLEY and LUELLA HORACEK, husband and wife, P l a i n t i f f s and Appellants, WILLIAM and VELMA H U D S O N , husband and wife, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Fourteenth Judicial D i s t r t c t , Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Ceunsel of Record : For Appellants : Robert L. Stephens argued, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Michael J. Whalen argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: April 8, 1975 ~ e c i d e d : AU G 5 :975 Filed: A Q G 5 1 y 5 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from a judgment of the d i s t r i c t court, Musselshell County, Hon. Nat Allen, s i t t i n g without a jury. The judgment denied r e l i e f i n a quiet t i t l e action t o p l a i n t i f f s Stanley and LuElla Horacek, husband and wife, and quieting t i t l e i n defendants William and Velma Hudson, husband and wife. The record contains a long r e c i t a l of f a c t s leading back t o the antecedents of the p a r t i e s through whom each claims t i t l e t o the property i n question. Two l o t s a r e involved, Lots 9 and 10, Block 3, Original Townsite of F a r r a l l , an old subdivision south of Roundup, Montana. P l a i n t i f f s claim t i t l e through one Leo Sedlacek who pur- chased and resided on Lots 5 , 6, 7, and 8, Block 3 of the sub- division and which abut the l o t s involved here, Lots 9 and 10. Record t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 was held by Dominic Vescovi and h i s wife, Jennie. Defendants claim t i t l e through Dominic and Jennie Vescovi . Here, the controlling question is---is there evidence t o support p l a i n t i f f s ' claim t h a t Leo Sedlacek acquired t i t l e t o the l o t s from Dominic and Jennie Vescovi through adverse possession? The property was a t a l l times assessed t o Dominic and Jennie Vescovi and the t a x notices were addressed t o them, i n care of Sedlacek. Sedlacek paid the taxes f o r the required number of years. However, defendants contend t h a t t h i s was the agreed lease payment f o r the use of the land t o grow garden pro- ducts. P l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r challenge of the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t Sedlacek had not acquired t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 through adverse possession, maintain s d l a c e k ' s possession of the property met a l l requirements of Montana law t o e s t a b l i s h adverse possession. P l a i n t i f f s point out there i s no factual dispute t h a t Sedlacek actually and continuously occupied the land i n question f o r a t l e a s t f i f t e e n years p r i o r t o h i s death. Section 93-2510, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a s s e r t Sedlacek enclosed the land i n question with a substantial enclosure and cultivated it annually by preparing and growing h i s truck garden. Section 93-2511, R.C.M. 1947. Further, Sedlacek paid a l l of the property taxes. Section 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f s argue there has been no proof t h a t a landlord- tenant relationship ever existed except f o r hearsay testimony from one of defendantsf witnesses, admitted over objection of p l a i n t i f f s ; t h a t the continuous, unexplained and uninterrupted use of the land i s s u f f i c i e n t l y adverse t o sustain t h e i r claim. P l a i n t i f f s presented witnesses who t e s t i f i e d Leo Sedlacek leased a portion of Lots 9 and 10 t o them during h i s lifetime. They further argue t h a t sedlacekfs leasing of the land and ultimately h i s conveying t h e land a r e c l e a r unequivocal a c t s manifesting an i n t e n t t o dispossess the prior owner. Finally, p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t Brown v. Cartwright, 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 684, stands f o r the proposition t h a t the question of adverse possession i s one of i n t e n t of the p a r t i e s t o be discovered from a l l the circumstances. Further, t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o carry t h e burden of establishing t i t l e by adverse possession. In support they c i t e Wilson v. Chestnut, 164 Mont. 484, 525 P.2d 24, 31 %.Rep. 606, a s authority t h a t the burden r e s t s on defendants. Here, the l e g a l t i t l e a t a l l times during the alleged adverse possession was i n Dominic Vescovi and h i s wife, Jennie. Under t h e provisions of section 93-2507, R.C.M. 1947, occupation of property by any person other than the l e g a l t i t l e holder i s deemed t o have been under and i n subordination t o the l e g a l t i t l e . Where defendants, a s here, show they a r e successors t o t h e owner of the l e g a l t i t l e , they have made a prima f a c i e case on t h e i r crossclaim and t h e burden i s then c a s t upon p l a i n t i f f s t o estab- l i s h t h e i r adverse possession. Smith v. Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 74 P.2d 450. The evidence i n t h e record i n t h e i n s t a n t case a t t h e very b e s t i s i n c o n f l i c t a s it r e l a t e s t o t h e matter of h o s t i l e possession by p l a i n t i f f s . Under such circumstances t h i s Court w i l l view t h e evidence i n a l i g h t most favorable t o t h e prevailing party i n t h e d i s t r i c t court and uphold its finding unless t h e evidence preponderates against t h e defendants. Johnson v. S i l v e r Bow County, 151 Mont. 283, 443 P.2d 6. W e do not disagree with t h e r a t i o n a l e i n Brown, r e l i e d on by p l a i n t i f f s , however, a casual reading of Brown demonstrates t h a t t h e f a c t s t h e r e a r e c l e a r l y distinguishable from t h e i n s t a n t case. I n Wilson, c i t e d by p l a i n t i f f s t o demonstrate the burden with of proof r e s t s on defendants, t h i s Court was dealing/an alleged p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t t o use an easement and was determining where t h e burden of proof might be from t i m e t o time i n such a case. There i s nothing i n Wilson t h a t can be construed t o hold t h a t t h e burden of proving h i s own t i t l e does not f a l l f i r s t t o any claimant. Lunceford v. Trenk, 163 Mont. 504, 518 P.2d 266, quoted with approval i n Wilson. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l court and reviewing the evidence i n a l i g h t most favorable t o the prevailing p a r t y , w e find it does not preponderate with any c l a r i t y against defendants. The judgment is affirmed. /' J u s t i c e W e concur: / A, - /* L 1 . A$;-.- - ,/$ < - e LP--- \ ---------,,f---------------- Chief J u s t i c e