Title: PARCEL v MYERS

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

am: iiuclo PARCEL, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, S - MERT.,IN W, MYERS, et. n i . , Defendants and Respondents. APTTEA?, FROM: District Courrt of the T e n t h J u d i c i a l Di.s"Lrici:., In and for the Cnuni,y of Ferqns, The Honorable R. D. McPbilLips, Judge presiding. F ' o r Aypel1an.t: Mark L. Stermitz, S t a n f o r d , Montana For Respondents: William E . Berger , Lewist-own , Montana Hauge, Ober & Brown, fifxvr~" Montana Suh~iitt:ed on Briefs: Nnv. 79, 1984 Decided: December 2 8 , 1 9 8 4 ."," Clerk M r . Jiist i.ce Frank 1 7 . Morrison, Jr. , del ivered the Opini.on of t h e Court, Parcel appea1.s from t h a t portion of t h e judgment. entered by tlhe D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Tenth Judici-al D i s t r i c t denyinn; him an award f o r c o s t s and attorney fees. Appellant, Jack Hugo Parcel, f i l e d a complaint on Febru- ary 2 , 1981, reguestinq reformation of a c o n t r a c t f o r deed f o r hi.s purchase of r e a l e s t a t e and also i.ssertiny claims of fraud and negligent ntisreprosentation a g a i n s t t h e Myers, s e l i e r s , and William Smith and Rona2.d F. Bastin, surveyors responsible f o r t h e subject d e f e c t i v e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n . Parcel claimed $10,000 i n clamaqes and $25,000 i n punitive rlainagez; under h i s fraud c1ai.m. Bastin an(? Smith f i l e d a motion t.o dismiss t h e fraud claim ctgainst them. The tri.a? court. dismissed a p p e l l a n t ' s actiacm against t h e surveyors w i t h prejudice when appellant f a i l e d t o respond t o t h i s notion t o dismi.sc., Myers answered, coun-l-erelaime and cross-cIajmed against Bastin a r i d Smith f o r indemnity. A l l motions t o dismiss and motions f o r surnmary juclgment f i l e d by respondents and t h i r d p a r t y defendants were denied, Thc a c t i o n was t r i e d t o t h c court on January 31, 1983, Finclingis, conclusions and j u d p e n t thereon were f i l e d on December 13, 1983, The d i s t r i c t judge reformed t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed i n the amount of $1,500, denied a l l o t h e r claims a g a i n s t Myers, ordered n l i p a r t i e s responsible f o r c o s t s a n d attorney fees, hut f a i l e d t o r u l e on khe t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n , Parcel appeals only on t h e issue of a t t o r n e y fees and c o s t s . Jack Parcel p ~ ~ r e h a s e d a parcel. of r e a l e s t a t e From Mer1i.n and Marcia Myers on o r about J u l y 9 , 1.979. The buy- s e l l agreement described t h e property a s "Merlin W. Myers home cons:isti.ng of hoiise, shop and 11.57 a c r e s mol-e o r l e s s inmiediately west of Lewistown. " N e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e purchase p r i c e and the conditioris of t h e buii.dings required t h r e e b u y s e l l agreements t o be d r a f t e d b ~ $ f n r e t h e Final c o n t r a c t f o r deed was executed i n August 1 9 7 9 , No purchase p r i c e per acre was ever t h e subject o f nego-kist;.ons nor were per a c r e kerms p r i n t e d on t h e face of t h e f i n a l buy-sell agreement o r the r e s u l t a n t c o n t r a c t For deed. Parcel required t h a t Myers have a new c c r t i f i . c a t e of survey prepared and rmcorded within a reasonab1.e t i m e a f t e r t h e closing of t h e transaction. P a r c e l ' s requirement of a survey a s condition of t h e s a l e , was t o assure him t h a t Myers had c l e a r t i t l e and ownership of t h e property within t h e fences wlrich were represented t o Parcel. a s t h e boundaries of t h e land he was purchasing. Smith completed t h e survey a f e w days p r i o r t o t h e signing of t h o c o n t r a c t f o r deed. Si.nce Smith was unlicensed, Bastin c e r t i f i e d the survey leqa1l.y c o r r e c t i n all. respects. Paroc:! confirmed t h a t t h e descrip- t i o n on t h e survey matched t h e 1.egal. d e s c r i p t i o n on t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed p r i o r t o closi-na t h e s a l e . The survey indicated t h a t t h e property contained 1 1 . 4 6 a c r e s instead of t h e 1 1 - 5 7 a c r e s represented on t h e buy-sell document. Parcel consumsited t h e land purchase d e s p i t e t h i s . 13.-acre deficiency . Parcel was f i r s t a l e r t e d t o a problem i n t h e l e g a l descr.ption of hi:: property in the f a l l of 1980 when he received h i s t a x statement which represented h i s ownership of s l i g h t l y more than 1 2 acrcs. Af.trr' i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he di.scerr- ered t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of survey drafted by Smith and c e r t i f i e d l q r Rastin war; i n e r r o r . Ueseripti.on of t h e property on th.e d e f e c t i v e survey commenced a t .tile cdqr of t h e county road (the southern bounciary) which was 30 f e e t north of t h e t r u e point of beginning, t h e center Line o:f t h e county right-of- way . The actual. measurements confor~ned t o t h e t r u e boundaries of t h e property had t h e proper s t a r t i n g p o , i i ~ t been rt?i'c?renced. The resu1.t 5-r; .that a s t r i p o f land t h i r t y f e e t wide and approximately seven hundred f e e t long was included nn the northern edge of t h e property, to which Myers d i d not have t i t l e and could aotcconvey, Besirin did not supervise Smith"; f i e l d work, nor d i d he coufirm t h e accuracy of t h e survey p r i o r t o h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Minut: t h a t area rcserved for t h e riqht-<.IS:-way, t h e area within the fence contained 10.86 acres. Parcel f i l e d an a c t i o n t o have t h e contract For deed reformed so a s t o repre-' s e n t t h e proper l e g a l description of t h e land he purchased and show a reduction of t h e sa:Les price t o r e f l e c t t h e de-, crease i n acreaqe. Parcel Eilc?d claims a g a i n s t bo.t.l) Myers and t h e surveyors, Bast in and S n i t h , f o r negli.gent misrepre- s e n t a t i o n of t h e t o t a l acreage. The d i s t r i c t judge denied Parcel." damage cl.aims, but retluced t h e s a l e s p r i c e $1,500. A H . p a r t i e s were responsible for: indi.vi.dua1 c o s t s and a t t o r - ney's Fees. The i s s u e on appeal is wheklier it was a n abuse o f d i s - c r e t i o n f o r t-he D i s t r i c t Court t o o r d m each p a r t y t o bear h i s own c o s t s and attorney fees. Appellant claims a s t a t u t o r y righ'r. to c o s t s pursuant t o 75-10-101(3) and (51, MCA, r;ince t h e case involves t i t l e tc: r e a l property whi.ch r e s u l t e d i n an award o f $1,500. W e disagree. The specj.fic language of the st.atute provides: "When c o s t s ,allowed, of course, t o p l a i n t i f f . c o s t s a r e allowed, o f course, t o the p l a i n t i f f T o n - a judgment in h i s favor in t h e following cases: - - - . - o . . " 13) i n an a c t i o n f o r t h e recovery of money o r damages, exclusive of i n t e r e s t , when plaintiff recovers over $50; " " ( 5 i n an action which i.nvojl~ies t h e t i t l e o r possession o r r i g h t of possesr.ion of r e a l e s t a t e ." (emphasis added) I n thi.s case, t h e "judgment i n his favor" was a $1,500 reformation of t h e o o n t ~ m c t purc11a:;e p r i c e , and not an action i.nvolvi.ng the t i t l e t o t h e property subject t o t h e contract o r a darnage action. Appellant c o r r e c t l y argues t h a t a l l o c a t i o n of c o s t s are l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n of the D i s t r i c t Court i n those actions not. mentioned i n t ; 25-10-lo:!, MCB. A n award of c o s t s i n an action t o reform a contract i s discretionary. W e find no abuse of the D i s r r i c t Court's d i s c r e t i o n t o order all. p a r t i e s responsible f o r t h e i r own c o s t s 3nd a t t o r n e y ' s fees. Appellant f o r t i f i e s h i s argumeat with the contention thxk since he i s t.he prevailing pa.rty, c o s t s and at%orneys fees a r e recoverable. The general, r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t absent a s t a t u t o r y o r contractual provision, attorney :fees a r e not recoverable, SLiters v. Lee ( ? . 9 8 2 ) , 197 Nant. 1 8 2 , 6 4 1 F. 21? 1175. Furthermore, t-his Court recently held that there i s no prevailing party where both p a r t i e s gain a victo- ry hut: a l s o s u f f e r a ioss. Rsrlidsen v, Taylor (1984), 685 P . 2 ~ 1 354, 357, 4 1 %.Rep. 1 90, 1493. Parcel prevailed on rcforsnation of contrack but l o s t on a 1 . 1 h e al.?.egations zqainst: Piiyer and the surveyors. Li.kewise, Nyer won on the fraud and negligent misrepresentatioln actions against him, and concurrently l o s t on the i s s u e o f reduction of the p i x - r i c e , The t r i a l court" order t h a t ea.cl.1 party bear h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y ' s fees was proper. The D i s t r i c t Court d i d not make a rulinq on t h e t h i r d party action tind there i s no iudgrnent f o r t h i s Court t o review. W e remand f o r a hearing t o determine t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h i r d p a r t y defendant t o t h i r d party p l a h t i f f , Judgment of t h e District Court reforming purchase price by a $1,500 r e d u c t i o n and ordering all parties to bear costs and attorney's fees i s affirm&. Liability of t h i r d party