Title: PARCEL v MYERS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 83-560 . b IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 JACK HUGO PARCEL, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- MERLIN W . MYERS, et al., Defendants and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the ' I ' e n t h Judicial District, In and for the County of Fergus, The Honorable R . D. McE1hillips, Judge presiding, COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Mark L. Stermitz; Stanford, Montana Law Off ic of John R . Christensen, For Respondents: William E , Berger; Wilkins & Berger, Lewistown, Montana Hauqe, Ober & Brown, Havre, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Nov. 29, 1984 Decided: March 20, 1985 Clerk M r . J u s t i c e Frank :B. Morrison, Jr., delivered t h e opinion o f t h e Court. Myers, respondent/cross a:?pell.ant., appeals from t h a t porti.cm o f t h e Ui.si-.ri.ct Court judgment. wli:?.ch reduceil t h e purchase p r i c e of t h e contra,c.t f o r deed i n favor of Parcel, appellant. Parcel brought an ai:ti.on against Myers f o r reformation of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r c?red containing n d e f e c t i v e l e g a l de- s c r i p t i o n , P a r c e l ' s a c t i o n against t h e surveyors responsible f o r t h e erroneous survey was dismissed with prejudice due t o P a r c e 1 . ' ~ f a i l u r e t o respond to surveyors' motion t o r?isnii s s . Finding no l i a b i l i t y of defendorits t o plai.nti.ffs, t h e t r i a l court reformed t:he c o n t r a c t by correctinq t h e leqaI. descrip- t i o n and reducing t h e puxc:hast? p r i c e . Parcel." sappeal From d e n i a l of fees and c o s t s i s addressed in our f i r s t opinion published i n Parcel. v, Myers (Mont. 19841 - P.2d 4 1 S t .Rep. 2426, This supplemerit~al decision discusses Myers' cross appeal. Jack Parcel purchased appiroximatc)I.y el.even a c r e s from M~?r1.i.r and Marcia Myers i n 1.979. The c o n t r a c t f o r deed required Myers t o have n survey of the subject property prepared and a c e r t i 5 i c a t e of :survey recorded. Parcel had the r e q u i s i t e survey pricr?: t o c l o s h q when t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed was executed. Error i n t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e real, e s t a t e re- su2tec.i From the surveyor u s i n g t h e edge of the adjacent county road a s t h e s t a r t i n g poi!?+: of t h e d e s c r i p t i o n irisSead of the center l i n e . This mistake shi.Fted t h e otherwise c o r r e c t d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e land t h i r t y f e e t t o tihe north. Pursuant t o t h i s cIefecti.ve c e r t i f i c a t e of survey, t h e Mvers contracted tc convey a s t r i p of land, t h i r t y f e e t wide and approximately 700 f e e t I.ong, which helonged t o t h e i r neighbor t o t h e north. Parcel brought an a c t i o n a g a i n s t Myers t o have t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n cor:recter! and t h e contract p r i c e reduced commen- s u r a t e with t h a t t h i r t y foot wi.de s t r i p of l a n d which t h e Myers d i d not have merchantable t i t l e t o convey. The d i s t r i c t eourt judyment reformed t h e cowtract t o c o r r e c t l y descrille t h e land conveyed and reduced t h e t o t a l purchase pr,ice i n t h e amount of $1,500. The s i n g u l a r i-ssue i n t h i s cross-appeal is: I , Whether t h e s a l e of the property was "j.n grosss' barrinq appellank" enti.tlement t o reformation of t h e con- t r a c t f o r deed hy reduction of purchase price. A t t h e o u t s e t o f our discussion, we mention t h a t nppei- i a n t dcoes not address t h i s i s s u e i~ e i t h e r t h e o r i g i n d l b r i e f o r a reply b r i e f . ?'ethnically, t h e matter could be resolved by del:aul.t i.n favor of respondent /cross appellant. Myers contends t h a t t h e r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n was a s a l e i n gross .which does not e n t i t l e t h e purchaser t o any reduction i n t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e . W e agree. The t r i a l c o u r t ' s findings and conclusions 013 t h i s i s s u e are i n t e r n a l l y inconsistent and warrant r e v e r s a l . Although t h e s p e c i f i c t.erm "i.n gross" i s not used i n t h e language of . i t s deoi.sion, t h e t r i a l judge c!learl.y described a bulk real. e s t a t e t r a n s o r t i o n between Parcel and Ryers i n its findings, i n Finding N o . V t h e t r i a l court Found: "That Defendants and/or t h e i r agent represented t o r i a i n t i f f t h e property t o be conveyed was within the. e x i s t i n g fences, excIuC7inq t h e County Road right-of-way.'" Followed 1.qr Finding hro. VI wili ch reads: "That P l - a i n t i f f reasonably e n t i t l e d t o , and d i d , r e l y upon t h e representa+:.ions of s a i d boundaries. '" The t r i a l c o u r t ' s most convincing d e s c r i p t i o n of a r e a l e s t a t e transactiori " i n gross" i s found i n Finding No. XliI w h i c h provides: ""Plaintiff looked a t the property with M r . Romcr Huges a t l e a s t t h r e e ( 3 ) t h e s . They walked t h e property. The property i s fenced on i t s borders and M r . Buges c!xpLainecI t o P l a i n t i f f , 'you a r e Looking a t what you g e t . ' There was nu conversa- t i o n about pri.ce p e r arxe. Negotiations were primarily about t h e t o t a l purchase p r i c e and b u i l d j ngs, " After t h i s unnnhi.guons d e s c r i p t i o n of a bulk s a l e of r e a l e s t a t e , t h e t r i a l court contradicted well.-establ.ished p r i n c i p l e s of law and ordered a $ 1 , 5 0 0 reduction i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o n t r a c t purchase p r i c e The leqal a u t h o r i t y rs unequivocal on t h i s s u b j e c t . 77 1W.JurS2d, Vendor and Purchaser, S Y O provides: "A c o n t r a c t of s a l e by t h e acre is one wherein a specified q u a n t i t y i s m a t e r i a l . Under such a c o n t r a c t t h e purchaser does not take t h e r i s k of any deficiency and t h e vendor does not take t h e ri.sk of any excess. The c o n t r a c t of s a l e by t h e . t r a c t o r i n g m s s i,s one wherein boundaries are s p e c i f i e d , but q u a n t i t y i!i no? s p e c i f i e d , o r i f s p e c i f i e d , t h e exist:enee of the exact q u a n t i t y specified i s not m a t e r i a l ; each p a r t y t a k e s t h e r i s k of t h e a c t u a l q u a n t i t y varying to some e x t e n t From what he expects it to he." W e adopt t h e r a t i o n a l e of the Arizona Supreme Court wliich, oi.ting t h e ahom 1 c q a . l a u t h o r i t y , held: i* * . . "Therein, t h e r u l e was s t a t e d t h a t on a s a l e of: land by i t s Lecgal ~iescripci.on, o r o t h e r s p e c i f i c description by which i t s koundaries a r e made cer- t a i n , f o r a s u m i.ii gross, t h e boundaries w i l l c o n t r o l i n case of a discrepancy a s t n q u a n t i t y , and t h a t such a s a l e i n gross a f f o r d s n o remedy t o t h e grantor o r t h e grantee f o r an excess o r d e f i - ciency unless such excess i s so g r e a t a s t o r a i s e a presumption of frayid." Carrel.1 v . Lux (1966), 1 0 1 Ariz. 4 3 0 , 420 P.2d 5G4, 572. The t r i a l judye found no evidenre of c r o s s a p p e l l a n t s ' i n t e n t t o defrauc"ithe appel.lant , The opinion oes not ex- p l a i n t h e reformat.i.on of t h e contract purchase p r i c e a s a n exercise of t h e t r i a l court s e q u i t a b l e power, For the reasons herein iliscussed, we reverse the Dis- trict C o u r t ' s decision reducing the original purchase price