Case Title: STIMATZ v STATE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 80-010

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-08-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 80-10 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 1980 L A W R E N C E C. STIMATZ, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , DEPARTMENT O F REVENUE, e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: The D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r BOW, t h e Honorable James Freebourn, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Maurice A. Maffei, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Poore, Roth, Robischon and Robinson, B u t t e , Montana Submitted on B r i e f s : June 5, 1980 oecided : AUG 1 3 1980 F i l e d : M r . ~ u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f appeals from a judgment i n favor of defendants granted by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow. I n February 1940, Helen C. Hodapp, one of t h e respon- d e n t s , received l e g a l t i t l e t o a one-half i n t e r e s t i n Lots 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 i n Block 5 of McQueeney's Subdivision t o t h e C i t y of Butte, Montana, by d i s t r i b u t i o n from t h e estate of her mother, E s t e l l e Conroy. The o t h e r one-half i n t e r e s t was d i s t r i b u t e d t o John H. Conroy. Lois P. Conroy and Nancy C. Boll each i n h e r i t e d an undivided one-fourth i n t e r e s t i n t h e l o t s from John H. Conroy when he died i n 1958. I n 1965 and 1970, Lawrence G. Stimatz, a p p e l l a n t , obtained t a x assignment c e r t i f i c a t e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e l o t s from S i l v e r B o w County and t h e r e a f t e r paid a l l r e a l property taxes l e v i e d on t h e l o t s u n t i l 1978. On A p r i l 20, 1978, a p p e l l a n t f i l e d an a c t i o n i n t h e District Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t f o r t h e purpose of q u i e t i n g t i t l e t o the l o t s , basing h i s a c t i o n on adverse possession. I n a d d i t i o n t o asking t h a t t h e t i t l e t o t h e property be quieted t o him, a p p e l l a n t asked t h a t i n t h e event of any redemption of t h e property a p p e l l a n t be allowed h i s c o s t s , including b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o t h e payment of taxes, p e n a l t i e s and i n t e r e s t , t i t l e search, management f e e s , reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s of s u i t . The c o u r t entered a judgment q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n t h e names of Helen C. Hodapp, Lois P. Conroy and Nancy C. ~011, finding t h a t a p p e l l a n t had n o t protected t h e l o t s by a s u b s t a n t i a l enclosure o r c u l t i v a t e d o r improved t h e same a s required by s e c t i o n 70-19-410, MCA, t o uphold a claim of adverse possession. Appellant p r e s e n t s two i s s u e s f o r review on appeal: 1. Did t h e District Court err i n granting judgment i n favor of respondents? 2. I f t h i s Court f i n d s t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t e r r i n granting t h e judgment, d i d t h e c o u r t err i n n o t awarding a p p e l l a n t h i s c o s t s expended including reasonable a t t o r n e y fees? Section 70-19-410, MCA, provides a s follows: "For t h e purpose of c o n s t i t u t i n g an adverse possession by a person claiming t i t l e n o t founded upon a w r i t t e n instrument, judgment o r decree, land i s deemed t o have been pos- sessed and occupied i n t h e following c a s e s only: " (1) Where it has been protected by a substan- t i a l enclosure; " ( 2 ) Where it has been unusually c u l t i v a t e d o r improved." A s a p p e l l a n t does n o t claim t i t l e based upon any w r i t t e n instrument o r decree, he must comply with t h e provisions of s e c t i o n 70-19-410, MCA, t o be considered a s having any possession of t h e property s u f f i c i e n t t o r i p e n i n t o t i t l e by adverse possession. Johnson v. S i l v e r Bow County (1968), 151 Mont. 283, 443 P.2d 6 ; Martin v. Randono (1978), 175 Mont. 321, 573 P. 2d 1156. Appellant admits he d i d n o t "enclose" o r " c u l t i v a t e " b u t claims t o have s a t i s f i e d t h e a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t o r y re- quirement f o r adverse possession by "improving" t h e land i n question. Appellant b a s i s t h i s claim on evidence t h a t t h e nature and c h a r a c t e r of t h e a r e a i n question i s i d e n t i c a l , and t h a t adjoining property owners t r e a t t h e i r land i n t h e same way a s he. I n e f f e c t a p p e l l a n t i s arguing t h a t t h e Court should equate maintenance of t h e property f o r its ordinary use with t h e requirement of "improve," t h a t so long a s any claimant maintains t h e land i n t h e same condition a s t h e surrounding property, a c l a i m f o r adverse possession can be upheld. I n support of h i s argument, a p p e l l a n t r e l i e s on two cases. Kenny v. Bridges (1949), 123 Mont. 95, 208 P.2d 475, and S u l l i v a n v. Nee1 (1937), 105 Mont. 253, 73 P.2d 206. I n both cases t h e Court upheld a claim f o r adverse possession based on an occupancy which maintained t h e ordinary use of t h e land. I t should be noted, however, t h e s e cases d e a l with a p l a i n t i f f claiming t i t l e founded upon a w r i t t e n instrument o r judgment, which is n o t t h e s i t u a t i o n here. When dealing with such a claim a s presented i n Kenny and Sullivan, t h e Court w i l l look t o s e c t i o n 70-19-408, MCA. Under t h i s s t a t u t e , t h e land i s deemed t o be possessed f o r t h e purpose of c o n s t i t u t i n g adverse possession where t h e land "although n o t enclosed has been used . . . f o r t h e ordinary use of t h e occupant." However, i n t h a t a p p e l l a n t i s n o t claiming t i t l e founded on an instrument o r judgment, t h i s s t a t u t e is n o t applicable. A claim f o r adverse posses- s i o n by a p p e l l a n t i s s p e c i f i c a l l y l i m i t e d t o those i n s t a n c e s l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 70-19-410, MCA. Appellant d i d n o t enclose o r c u l t i v a t e t h e property. The only a c t i v i t y engaged i n by a p p e l l a n t i n regard t o t h e land was t h a t he looked it over, paced it o u t , paid t h e taxes, sketched it, v i s i t e d it approximately every t h r e e months, and e n t e r t a i n e d purchase i n q u i r i e s . A s t h e evidence shows, a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t make any attempt t o improve t h e property b u t was w i l l i n g t o l e t t h e property rest a s it was found. S u f f i c e it t o say t h i s does n o t f u l f i l l t h e require- ments of t h e s t a t u t e . Finding t h a t a p p e l l a n t d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h adverse pos- s e s s i o n , we must consider t h e second i s s u e r a i s e d on t h i s appeal: Did t h e c o u r t e r r i n not awarding c o s t s t o appel- l a n t ? Had a p p e l l a n t prevailed i n h i s adverse possession claim, it would have been proper t o award him h i s c o s t s . Section 25-10-101(5), MCA. However, respondents received a decree i n t h e i r favor. I n such a case, t h e c o u r t has au- t h o r i t y t o award t h e respondents t h e i r c o s t s . Section 25- 10-102, MCA; s e c t i o n 25-10-101(5), MCA; Medhus v. Dutter (1979) I - Mont. , 603 P.2d 669, 36 St.Rep. 2044. The f a c t t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h i s i n s t a n c e decreed each p a r t y t o assume and pay c o s t s expended was n o t an abuse of i t s d i s c r e t i o n . Judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n favor of respondents i s affirmed. J u s t i c e W e concur: 4 ; 4 4 ~ i h / , 4 Chief J u s t i c e