No. 90-148 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

PAT M. GOODOVER, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

LINDEYIS, INC., and the ESTATE OF 

WILLIAM C. FOREST, deceased, and 

the unknown heirs and unknown devisees 

of any Defendant, above-named, who may 

be deceased, et al., 

Defendants and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Missoula, 

The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Paul Neal Cooley, Skelton & Cooley, Missoula, 

Montana (Lindey s) ; Jerome T. Loendorf , Harrison, 

Loendorf & Posten, Helena, Montana (Estate of 

Forest) 

For Respondent: 

John W. Larson, Missoula, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: August 9, 1990 

Filed: 

~ecided: December 18, 1990 
s I r I 

Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Defendant and appellant, Lindeyts, Inc., appeals from an order 

of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, requiring 

it to undertake efforts to locate underground fuel storage tanks 

and to remove a restroom facility encroaching upon property owned 

by plaintiff and respondent, Pat M. Goodover. We affirm. 

We will address the following issue: 

Did the District Court err in fashioning a remedy to enforce 

its earlier declaratory judgment that established the location of 

the north-south boundary line dividing the partiest property? 

Plaintiff and respondent, Pat M. Goodover, is the owner of Lot 

2 and defendant and appellant, Lindeyts, Inc., is the owner of Lot 

1 of the Seeley Lake Shores Sites in Missoula County. In order to 

resolve a boundary dispute between the parties, Goodover, on August 

21, 1984, filed an action for declaratory judgment and quiet title. 

After a trial held on April 7, 1987, the District Court issued 

findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in favor of 

Goodover, establishing the north-south boundary between the lots. 

The court specifically reserved the issue of damages for a later 

hearing. 

Lindeyts appealed to this Court, arguing that substantial 

credible evidence did not support the boundary line established by 

the District Court. In Goodover v. Lindeyts, Inc., 232 Mont. 302, 

757 P.2d 1290 (1988), we affirmed the judgment of the District 

Court. 
After the complaint was filed but prior to trial, Lindeyls 

constructed a restroom facility and installed two underground fuel 

storage tanks in the area of the disputed boundary. Once the 

boundary was established by the District Court, it was apparent 

that the restroom encroached upon Goodoverls property. It was also 

possible that the fuel storage tanks encroached upon the property; 

however, it was impossible to determine the exact location of the 

tanks because they were buried. 

Following this Courtls affirmance of the boundary-line issue, 

Goodover petitioned the District Court to issue an order requiring 

Lindeyls to show cause why it should not be required to remove the 

restroom facility from its encroachment and why it should not be 

required to determine the exact site of the underground fuel 

storage tanks. A hearing on the matter was held on November 13, 

1989, after which the District Court entered an order requiring 

Lindeyls to remove the encroaching restroom facility and to locate 

the buried fuel storage tanks. Lindeyts appeals. 

Lindeyls raises a myriad of issues in an attempt to relitigate 

the boundary-line question. We refuse to examine these arguments, 

however, because the boundary-line issue was reviewed and finally 

decided during the first appeal to this Court. The District 

Courtls determination of the boundary line is thus res judicata and 

cannot be reconsidered on this appeal. 

The issue we will consider is whether the District Court erred 

in fashioning a remedy to enforce its declaratory judgment that 

established the north-south boundary dividing the parties1 
property. Lindeyls argues that the ~istrict Court exceeded its 

jurisdiction by requiring it to move the restroom and locate the 

fuel storage tanks when Goodoverls complaint did not request such 

measures in its prayer for relief. We do not agree. 

Goodover brought this action as one for quiet title and 

declaratory judgment. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, §fj 

27-8-201 through -313, MCA, authorizes the District Court to 

provide supplemental relief when petitioned to do so. Section 27- 

8-313, MCA, states: 

Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree 

may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The 

application therefore shall be by petition to a court 

having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the 

application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on 

reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights 

have been adjudicated by a declaratory judgment or decree 

to show cause why further relief should not be granted 

forthwith. 

The statute enables the District Court to retain jurisdiction 

to grant further relief as it deems necessary and proper to enforce 

the declaratory judgment. The supplemental relief should be 

designed to provide complete relief to the parties, which may 

include a monetary judgment or coercive relief or both. See Lowe 

v. Harmon, 115 P.2d 297, 300 (Or. 1941). In fashioning the remedy, 

the court is not bound by the relief requested in the complaint but 

may order any relief needed to effectuate the judgment. Dry Canyon 

Farms, Inc. v. United States Natll Bank, 772 P.2d 1343, 1345 (Or. 

Ct. App. 1989). 

In Dry Canyon Farms, 772 P.2d at 1345, the Oregon Court of 

Appeals interpreted the scope of Oregon's supplemental relief 
6 u 

statute, which is identical to ours, as follows: 

[Tlhe scope of relief under ORS 28.080 [the Oregon 

supplemental relief statute] is controlled by the 

underlying declaratory judgment and not by the claims 

raised in the original proceedings. Accordingly, a party 

is not precluded from seeking supplemental relief in the 

form of damages by its failure to claim such damages in 

the original declaratory proceeding. 

Likewise, Goodover was not precluded from asking the District 

Court to order Lindeyls to remove the restroom facility and to 

locate the underground fuel storage tanks. The remedies were 

needed to give complete and effectual relief to the declaratory 

judgment . The full resolution of the boundary-line dispute 

required Lindeyls to remove the encroachments from Goodoverls 

property. The District Court did not err in granting the 

supplemental relief. 

Affirmed. 

We Concur: