Case Title: Gajewski v. Bratcher

Citation: 307 N.W.2d 826

Docket Number: 9175-A

State: north-dakota

Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Date: 1981-06-25T00:00:00Z

Document:
307 N.W.2d 826 (1981) Loren R. GAJEWSKI and Mervin A. Gajewski, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Lyle D. BRATCHER, Sharon Bratcher, and Edward Bratcher, Defendants and Appellees. Civ. No. 9175-A. Supreme Court of North Dakota. June 25, 1981. *827 Loren R. Gajewski and Mervin A. Gajewski, Alexander, plaintiffs and appellants, pro se. Bjella, Neff, Rathert & Wahl, Williston, for defendants and appellees, argued by Vern C. Neff, Williston. SAND, Justice. The plaintiffs, Loren R. and Mervin A. Gajewski [Gajewskis] appealed from a judgment of dismissal after a jury verdict in favor of the defendants, Lyle D., Sharon, and Edward Bratcher, and from a denial of their motion for a new trial. This is the third appeal before this Court by these parties involving essentially the same factual background. Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (N.D.1976); Gajewski v. Bratcher, 221 N.W.2d 614 (N.D. 1974). This action initially originated with the Gajewskis' amended complaint which contained what were denominated as five separate causes of action. These five causes of action alleged in substance as follows: The Gajewskis first cause of action was tried separately without a jury in 1968. After trial, the district court entered judgment which dismissed the Gajewskis' first cause of action to determine adverse claims against all of the defendants and which quieted the title in Lyle D. and Sharon Bratcher. The Gajewskis appealed. This Court in Gajewski v. Bratcher, 221 N.W.2d 614 (N.D.1974) [Gajewski I], reversed the district court judgment and remanded the case with directions that the district court vacate and set aside its judgment and enter judgment quieting title to the land in the Gajewskis. The reversal also reinstated the second through fifth causes of action which had not been tried and on which we had expressed no opinion. However, the Bratchers, after an unsuccessful attempt in this Court, filed a motion in the district court under Rule 60(b), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure, which motion was subsequently granted, resulting in the reinstatement of the district court's original judgment. The district court's ruling on the motion was based upon its finding that the Gajewskis had accepted substantial benefits ($5,000.00 bank money order) under the terms of the district court's judgment while the Gajewskis' first appeal was pending before this Court, and that they were, therefore, precluded from contesting the validity of the original judgment. The Gajewskis appealed from the ruling on the motion and the resulting order. We reversed and remanded with instructions requiring the Gajewskis to return the $5,000.00. Gajewski v. Bratcher, 240 N.W.2d 871 (N.D.1976) [Gajewski II]. In so doing we reinstated our original decision. The case then proceeded to jury trial on the Gajewskis' second through fifth causes of action. The jury returned a verdict on the remaining causes of action in favor of the Bratchers and against the Gajewskis, and judgment for dismissal was entered. Thereafter, the Gajewskis unsuccessfully moved for a new trial. The Gajewskis appealed to this Court from the judgment on the verdict and from the denial of a new trial. Because our decision in Gajewski I is relevant to several of the issues presented in this appeal, we will briefly discuss that decision. *829 The overriding issue presented in Gajewski I concerned a determination of adverse claims to the parcel of land described earlier herein. Our determination of that issue required us to consider several interrelated questions. The facts as set out in that case reflect that there was a sharp and irreconcilable conflict in the testimony of the Gajewskis and the testimony of the Bratchers' two principal witnesses. The Gajewskis testified in substance that they entered into an agreement with Glenna Gajewski [Glenna] and Lloyd Gajewski [Lloyd] to purchase the described parcel of land; that the Gajewskis and Glenna and Lloyd executed two instruments which reflected the sale of the land to the Gajewskis by quitclaim deed (the instruments were admitted into evidence at the trial on the first cause of action); that the Gajewskis entered into actual, open and peaceful possession of the premises in the spring of 1962, except for the residence located thereon which was temporarily retained by Glenna, and have remained in continuous possession of the land and taken all the crops thereon from 1962 through 1967; that the Gajewskis recorded their quitclaim deed on 10 Jan. 1967; that Glenna executed and delivered a warranty deed to Lyle Bratcher and his wife on 25 Nov. 1966. Glenna and Lloyd testified in substance on behalf of the Bratchers and without objection to the competency or admissibility thereof under the parol evidence rule that they were indebted to the Williston Cooperative Credit Union and did not have money to pay the indebtedness; that they asked Loren Gajewski if he could lend them money to make the payments; that Loren promised to loan them money on the condition that they would give him a quitclaim deed to the premises in issue; and that the quitclaim deed was delivered only for the purposes of security on that loan. The first issue that we discussed in Gajewski I was whether or not the oral testimony of Glenna and Lloyd, received without proper and timely objection, was competent and admissible to prove that the quitclaim deed was given as security for the alleged loan and that upon payment thereof the quitclaim deed was to be returned to Glenna and Lloyd. We noted that because of the trial court's decision, it was obvious that the trial judge concluded that the version of the facts testified to by Glenna and Lloyd was true. However, we concluded that the oral testimony was incompetent and inadmissible because of the parol evidence rule: Furthermore, we determined that the Gajewskis' failure to object to the oral testimony did not waive their right to assign error to the testimony for the first time on appeal, and we concluded that the trial court erred in considering the evidence that was received in violation of the parol evidence rule. Having decided that issue we then considered whether or not the remaining evidence established that Lyle and Sharon Bratcher acquired their title with actual or constructive notice[1] that Glenna was not in actual possession of the premises and had not taken or received any rents or profits therefrom for a space of more than one year prior to the time they obtained their warranty deed on 25 Nov. 1966. We noted that Lyle Bratcher admitted under oath that he knew that the Gajewskis had been in actual possession of the premises from the spring of 1962. We determined that this notice was sufficient to put Lyle Bratcher on constructive notice that the *830 Gajewskis were in possession of the premises under a quitclaim deed. Further, we noted that Lyle Bratcher testified that at the time his warranty deed was executed Glenna told him that she had given a quitclaim deed to the Gajewskis for purposes of security. We determined that this constituted actual knowledge and notice to Bratcher of the quitclaim deed and that the Gajewskis' unrecorded quitclaim deed was valid against the Bratchers because they had actual notice of the quitclaim deed. Based on the Bratchers' knowledge of the facts at the time the warranty deed was executed, we determined that the warranty deed which Lyle D. and Sharon Bratcher obtained from Glenna Gajewski was champertous and void. The next issue we considered in Gajewski I was if, after eliminating and excluding all oral or extrinsic evidence that was incompetent and inadmissible under the parol evidence rule, together with the warranty deed which we held was champertous and void, there was sufficient competent evidence in the record, independent and separate from that which was incompetent, to sustain the judgment of the district court quieting the Bratchers' title to the premises. We determined that the Bratchers had failed to prove by clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence that the quitclaim deed was delivered for the purposes of security and therefore the district court's judgment was not supported by competent evidence. Finally, we determined that the Gajewskis had established facts sufficient by a fair preponderance of the evidence to quiet title in their favor. We concluded that opinion by pointing out: These causes of action were slander to title, slander to person, and trespass to land. The first issue raised by the Gajewskis on this appeal is whether or not the district court had jurisdiction to consider de facto defenses and evidence offered at trial because the defenses were not pleaded. The Gajewskis assert that none of the defenses alleged in the Bratchers' answer survived the first appeal, Gajewski I. Rule 8(c), N.D.R.Civ.P., provides in part that: The Gajewskis assert that because the Bratchers did not plead what they assert are "an avoidance or affirmative defense" they could not raise those defenses at trial over the Gajewskis' objection. The Gajewskis particularly point to the following two "avoidance or defenses" which they assert were improperly interjected into the trial: (1) the Gajewskis' reputations were not subject to damage, and (2) testimony which reflected Bratchers' lack of malice, lack of wanton conduct and in support of their good intentions. The thrust of the Bratchers' case at trial was that their title was as good as the Gajewskis until our decision in Gajewski I was rendered. Initially with respect to the Gajewskis' reputation, we note that their complaint alleged that they suffered "public embarrassment, damage to their reputation and business, and extreme mental anguish and public slander." The Bratchers' answer denied these allegations. During the course of the trial, the Bratchers elicited testimony reflecting a 1962 felony conviction and subsequent incarceration in 1964. The Gajewskis also *831 claim "surprise" when evidence of this nonpleaded "defense" was introduced. However, this issue was raised in the Bratchers' pretrial brief and was also raised in a pretrial motion. Further, the Gajewskis' amended complaint put their reputation in the community in issue, and during the course of the trial the Gajewskis offered evidence as to how their reputation was injured. Because of this we do not believe the Gajewskis' claim of "surprise" is meritorious. Furthermore, we do not believe the 1962 felony conviction and subsequent incarceration is an "avoidance or affirmative defense" within the purview of Rule 8(c), N.D.R.Civ.P., and we believe the Bratchers' specific denial of the slander-to-person allegations in the Gajewskis' complaint put the matter in issue. The Gajewskis in their prima facie case were required to establish that their reputation in the community had been damaged. As such the Bratchers were entitled to refute the claim without pleading the Gajewskis' incarceration as an affirmative defense. In a closely related matter, we note that Rule 609(b), North Dakota Rules of Evidence, provides that evidence of a conviction is not admissible for impeachment purposes if more than ten years have elapsed since the date of the conviction. However, in this instance the evidence of the Gajewskis' conviction was not used for impeachment, but was used as substantive evidence to refute the Gajewskis' claim that their reputation was injured. The Gajewskis also assert that the evidence which reflected the Bratchers' lack of malice and lack of wanton conduct and in support of the Bratchers' good intentions should not have been admitted because it was not pleaded as an affirmative defense. Further, the Gajewskis assert that this question was already adjudicated in Gajewski I. We do note that the following defense was interposed by Bratchers: This defense was not extinguished by our previous decision in Gajewski I. Nor did Gajewski I decide this question as it related to the issues in the instant case. In this respect, the Gajewskis' reliance on "law of the case" doctrine is misplaced. The "law of the case" doctrine provides that a decision by an appellate court is the law of that case on the points presented throughout all subsequent proceedings in the case in both the trial and appellate courts provided the facts and issues are substantially the same as those on which the first decision rested. Continental Life and Accident Co. v. Songer, 124 Ariz. 294, 603 P.2d 921 (Ariz.App.1979); see, 24A Words and Phrases page 104 et seq. It is a necessary corollary to this doctrine that the former ruling is not binding upon subsequent proceedings if the issues presented therein are different. We have said that the "rule of the `law of case' ... does not extend to matters not decided, even though... [we] may have made some statements or remarks with respect thereto." Muhlhauser v. Becker, 74 N.D. 103, 20 N.W.2d 353 (1945). The Gajewskis contend that because this Court's opinion in Gajewski I contained language that the Bratchers were not goodfaith purchasers and that the deed relied upon by the Bratchers was champertous and void, those statements should be binding *832 on the remaining four causes of action. However, those statements were all relative to our determination of the owner of the property in question, and we specifically expressed no opinion as to the remaining four causes of action. [Slander of title, slander of person, trespass to land, and punitive damages.] Although both the warranty deed and the oral testimony concerning whether or not the quitclaim deed was given as security for a loan were not competent to establish the Bratchers' title to the land, that evidence was relevant to establish the factual background of the disputed transaction which was pertinent to the remaining four causes of action. Because the ultimate decision in Gajewski I involved the determination of the owner of the property and did not address the four remaining causes of action, we conclude that "law of the case" doctrine is not applicable to the instant case and that the evidence relating to the Bratchers' lack of malice, lack of wanton conduct and in support of their good intentions was relevant to the factual background which was the basis of the Gajewskis' remaining four causes of action. The second issue we will consider relates to the trial court's failure to give jury instructions which were requested by the Gajewskis. The Gajewskis assert that on the basis of this court's holding in Gajewski I the requested instructions were warranted. Jury instructions must be considered in their entirety and if the effect of the instructions is to outline the essential issues fairly and properly, an isolated improper statement will not be considered prejudicial error. Wasem v. Laskowski, 274 N.W.2d 219 (N.D.1979). The trial court need not give instructions in the specific language requested if the substance of the requested instruction is already fully and fairly covered by another charge. McGarry v. Skogley, 275 N.W.2d 321 (N.D.1979); Wasem v. Laskowski, supra. If an instruction adequately covers the law, it is not error to refuse to give a requested instruction even though there was nothing objectionable in the requested instruction. Wasem v. Laskowski, supra. The Gajewskis asserted that the "law of the case" as formulated by our decision in Gajewski I directly embodied the following requested instructions: The Gajewskis also assert that the "law of the case" also required the trial court to give an instruction differentiating between "malice" and "malice at law." In this instance we do not believe the law of the case doctrine is applicable to the requested jury instructions because different issues were involved in Gajewski I and the instant case. Gajewski I involved the determination of the owner of the parcel of land. Any statements made in our resolution of that issue are not necessarily binding on the remaining causes of action. Because the requested instructions 1, 4 and 6 were taken from Gajewski I in which a different issue was resolved, we do not believe it was error for the trial court to refuse to give those instructions in the trial of the remaining four causes of action. The Gajewskis' requested instructions 2, 3, and 7 were addressed to the cause of action dealing with slander of person and provide as follows: The district court gave the following instruction concerning slander of person: We believe this instruction, when read as a whole, outlines the slander of person issue fairly and correctly. Accordingly, we do not believe it was error for the trial court to refuse to give the instruction specifically requested by the Gajewskis. Instruction 5 which was requested by the Gajewskis deals with trespass to land and provides as follows: The district court gave the following instruction concerning trespass to land: *835 We believe this instruction outlines the trespass to land issue fairly and correctly, and we do not believe it was error for the district court to refuse to give the instruction requested by the Gajewskis on this issue. The next issue raised by the Gajewskis is that the constitutional right to a trial by jury was denied when the trial court denied Mervin Gajewski the right to cross-examine Lyle Bratcher. Prior to this denial Loren Gajewski had been conducting the cross-examination of Lyle Bratcher. Rule VII(e)(1), North Dakota District Court Rules[2] provided as follows: Matters pertaining to cross-examination of witnesses are within the sound discretion of the trial court. North American Pump Corporation v. Clay Equipment Corporation, 199 N.W.2d 888 (N.D.1972); Killmer v. Duchscherer, 72 N.W.2d 650 (N.D.1955); Mevorah v. Goodman, 79 N.D. 443, 57 N.W.2d 600 (1953). In this instance we do not believe the trial court abused its discretion in denying Mervin Gajewski the opportunity to cross-examine Lyle Bratcher. The record reflects that Mervin Gajewski was able to confer with Loren and have his questions asked by Loren. Loren and Mervin did not have separate and distinct interests in this lawsuit. Rather, their interests were similar. Furthermore, the Gajewskis have not shown the trial court's action in any way prejudiced their case, and we cannot conclude that the trial court abused its discretion. The last issue raised by the Gajewskis is that the trial court erred in denying their motion for a new trial. The Gajewskis' motion for a new trial was based upon the same issues as the present appeal. An order denying a new trial will not be overturned unless there was a manifest abuse of discretion. Stee v. "L" Monte Industries, Inc., 247 N.W.2d 641 (N.D.1976). Because we have concluded the Gajewskis cannot prevail on any of the issues raised on this appeal, we must also conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the Gajewskis' motion for a new trial. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C. J., and PAULSON, PEDERSON and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur. [1] Section 47-19-46, North Dakota Century Code, provides that "an unrecorded instrument is valid as between the parties thereto and those who have notice thereof." [Underscoring ours.] [2] This rule was amended by substituting "party" for "side" and placed under Rule 10.1, NDROC, effective 1 July 1981.