Title: BLAKELY v KELSTRUP

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 8 5 - 1 7 2 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 5 YOLANDA BLAKELY, P l a i n t i f f a n d R e s p o n d e n t , REIDER E. KELSTRUP and DELORES J. KELSTRUI? , D e f e n d a n t s a n d A p p e l l a n t s . APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of G a l l a t i n , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joseph B. G a r y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r A p p e l l a n t : M o r r o w , S e d i v y & B e n n e t t ; Lyman H. B e n n e t t , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t : Wayne Jennings, B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a Submitted on briefs: Aug. 15, 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : O c t o b e r 22, 1385 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s i s an appeal from an o r d e r and judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , G a l l a t i n County, Montana. The c a s e was b i f u r c a t e d , t h e Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y p r e s i d i n g a t t h e bench t r a i l and t h e Honorable Joseph B. Gary p r e s i d i n g a t t h e h e a r i n g on damages. Following t h e bench t r i a l t h e c o u r t found t h e p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f two mobile homes and t h r e e a c r e s o f l a n d , m o r e or less, on which t h e homes w e r e s i t u a t e d . A t t h e subsequent h e a r i n g on damages t h e c o u r t awarded p l a i n t i f f t r e b l e damages o f $4,500 p u r s u a n t t o 5 70-27-207, MCA, f o r r e a s o n a b l e r e n t o f t h e t r a i l e r homes and land. The d e f e n d a n t a p p e a l s . W e a f f i r m . P l a i n t i f f , Yolanda B l a k e l y , bought, developed, i m p r o v ~ d and t h e n attempted t o s e l l land. The land i n q u e s t i o n was l e a s e d t o d e f e n d a n t s , R e i d e r and Dolores Kel s t r u p , r e n t - f r e e f o r f i v e y e a r s . During t h e l e a s e p e r i o d R l a k e l y a s s i g n e d h e r i n t e r e s t i n t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y t o t h e T r i p l e B T r u s t . The assignment was recorded. The T r u s t l a t e r r e a s s i g n e d t h e i n t e r e s t t o h e r t h r o u g h a q u i t c l a i m deed, which was n o t recorded. A t t h e end o f t h e l e a s e p e r i o d K e l s t r u p s r e f u s e d t o v a c a t e t h e premises and B l a k e l y f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t them under Montana's f o r c e a b l e e n t r y and d e t a i n e r s t a t u t e s , T i t l e 70, ch. 27, MCA. K e l s t r u p s defended, a l l e g i n g B l a k e l y was n o t t h e p r o p e r p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n because s h e was n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , and t h e a c t i o n should b e dismissed. R e s o l u t i o n o f t h e c a s e t u r n s on t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e r e c o r d i n g s t a t u t e s and which p a r t y i s t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . K e l s t r u p s c l a i m B l a k e l y i s n o t t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t because s h e d i d n o t r e c o r d t h e reassignment t o h e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e leased p r o p e r t y and t h e r e f o r e does n o t have record t i t l e t o t h e property. K e l s t r u p s mistake record t i t l e w i t h l e g a l t i t l e . The two a r e n o t synonymous. A p r o p e r t y owner can have v a l i d l e g a l t i t l e t o p r o p e r t y without r e c o r d a t i o n . The r u l e i s an unrecorded deed a f f e c t i n g t i t l e t o land i s v a l i d between t h e p a r t i e s . "An unrecorded instrument i s v a l i d a s between t h e p a r t i e s and t h o s e vrho have n o t i c e t h e r e o f . " Section 70-21-102, MCA. Recordation i s a device t o e s t a b l i s h p r i o r i t y , b u t h a s nothing t o do w i t h conveying t i t l e . Lawler v. Gleason (Cal. 1955), 279 P.2d 70, 7 3 . The purpose o f r e c o r d i n g instruments i s t o g i v e n o t i c e t o subsequent purchasers and encumbrancers. Unless it i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t recording t h e deed p a s s e s t i t l e it does n o t do s o , The record does n o t d i s c l o s e such i n t e n t i o n . Documents a r e recorded t o a l e r t t h o s e persons who might change t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t i t l e , s p e c i f i c a l l y subsequent purchasers and mortgagees. The K e l s t r u p s a r e holdover t e n a n t s . T h e i r only i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y was a r e n t - f r e e f i v e year l e a s e . They do n o t f a l l w i t h i n t h e scope and p r o t e c t i o n afforded by t h e r e c o r d i n g s t a t u t e s . Their l e g a l p o s i t i o n i s n o t a f f e c t e d whether Blakely o r t h e T r i p l e B T r u s t holds t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y . I n any e v e n t , Blakely holds t i t l e because, though unrecorded, she holds a v a l i d deed from T r i p l e B T r u s t . I f , however, t h e t r u s t had conveyed a deed t o y e t a n o t h e r p a r t y who recorded it p r i o r t o B l a k e l y ' s recording, t h a t p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t would be s u p e r i o r t o B l a k e l y ' s and Blakely would n o t be t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . K e l s t r u p s ' argument t h a t Blakely i s n o t t h e proper p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n due t o t h e e a r l i e r assignment j.s without m e r i t . The law i n Montana f o r over e i g h t y y e a r s has been a p l a i n t i f f v e s t e d w i t h l e g a l t i t l e is t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . Genzberger v. Adams (1922), 62 Mont. 430, 436, 205 P. 658, 660. See a l s o Rae v. Cameron (1941), 112 Mont. 159, 175, 1 1 4 ,P.2d 1060, 1067. Rule 17 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. p r o v i d e s , "every a c t i o n s h a l l be prosecuted i n t h e name o f t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . . . " Requiring t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t o b r i n g an a c t i o n p r o t e c t s a defendant from m u l t i p l e s u i t s . Allowing t h i s judgment t o stand w i l l n o t s u b j e c t t h e K e l s t r u p s t o m u l t i p l e s u i t s . T r i p l e B T r u s t d i v e s t e d i t s e l f o f any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y and cannot now be heard t o claim it was t h e i n j u r e d p a r t y . To allow it t o do s o would negate t h e argument t h a t Blakely i s t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t . Dismissing t h i s a c t i o n would be tantamount t o arguing t h e r e i s no r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , c l e a r l y an a b s u r d i t y . The K e l s t r u p s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e same l i a b i l i t y r e g a r d l e s s o f who owns t h e property. They a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e same p r o t e c t i o n a s a subsequent purchaser and c e r t a i n l y a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o more p r o t e c t i o n . The proper p a r t y brought t h e a c t i o n . T h e d e c i s i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court is affirmed. W e concur: