NO. 89-125 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1989 

ANNA G. REITER, 

plaintiff and Respondent, 

vs. 

EDWARD L. REITER, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth ~udicial ~istrict, 

In and for the County of Yellowstone, 

The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: Edward L. ~eiter, pro se, Billings, Montana 

For Respondent: Fred E. Work, Jr., ~illings, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: September 21, 1989 

Decided: January 4, 1990 
Justice ~illiam E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the 

Court. 

Anna G. Reiter, mother of defendant and appellant, filed 

an unlawful detainer action in Justice Court, ~illings 

 owns ship, Yellowstone County, seeking to remove defendant, 

Edward L. ~eiter, from her property. The Justice Court ruled. 

in favor of Anna and ordered Edward to vacate the premises. 

Edward appealed to the ~hirteenth Judicial District Court, 

which also found in favor of Anna. Edward now appeals to 

this Court. We dismiss the appeal as frivolous. 

It is difficult to ascertain from Edward's rambling and 

incoherent brief exactly what issues he raises on appeal. It 

appears that his contentions are as follows: 

1. Whether the District Court proceedings violated 

Edward's due process rights; and 

2. Whether the ~istrict Court erred in finding that 

Edward was a tenant at will. 

plaintiff, Anna Reiter, who is over 80 years of age, is 

the sole owner of agricultural property in Yellowstone 

County. For a number of years, she allowed her adult son 

Edward, the defendant in this case, to reside on the 

property. 

In 1986, Edward placed a lien on the property. In 1988, 

the District Court extinguished the lien and quieted title in 

Anna. We affirmed that action in ~eiter v. ~eiter (Mont. 

1989), 772 P.2d 314, 46 St.Rep. 751. 

On ~pril 8, 1988, Edward was served with a ~otice to 

~errninate unspecified Lease, To Remove Personal properties 

and To Return production ~onies. When Edward failed to 

comply with the notice, Anna filed this unlawful detainer 

action in Justice Court. 
~ollowing a hearing at which Edward appeared pro se, the 

Justice Court found in favor of Anna, ordering Edward to 

vacate the property and to pay Anna's reasonable attorney's 

fees. In July, 1988, Edward filed a timely appeal for trial 

de novo in the District Court. 

On October 19, 1988, the District Court dismissed the 

appeal because Edward had failed to file an undertaking. On 

December 16, 1988, the court reinstated the appeal, allowing 

Edward to forego the undertaking due to his indigence. At 

that time, the Court set trial for December 28, 1988. 

Edward's subsequent motion to continue the trial was denied 

and trial proceeded as scheduled on December 28. Edward 

failed to attend the hearing, choosing instead to file a 

document entitled rial De Novo submitted on points of Law in 

~bsentia in which he stated that he was unable to obtain a 

lawyer on such short notice and he refused to be 

cross-examined without the presence of counsel. 

The ~istrict Court found in favor of Anna and ordered 

Edward to leave the farm. He now appeals to this Court. 

After reviewing the file, we hold that Edward was 

afforded adequate due process. Edward claims that he did not 

have adequate time to obtain an attorney or conduct 

discovery. These contentions stretch the imagination. ~ive 

months elapsed from the time Edward filed notice of appeal to 

the time of trial. Although the appeal was dismissed and 

reinstated during that time, these actions did not prevent 

Edward from procuring the services of counsel. Moreover, 

once the ~istrict Court granted Edward's motion for leave to 

appeal without an undertaking, it was obliged to expedite the 

matter in order to prevent the possible destruction of Anna's 

property during the pendency of the action. 

Edward also complains that he was not allowed a trial by 

7. The argument is frivolous. A party desiring a jury 
trial must file a demand before the commencement of the 

proceeding or the right to a jury will be waived. Section 

25-31-804, MCA. At no time did Edward demand a jury trial. 

Edward's second issue also lacks merit. Substantial 

credible evidence supports the ~istrict Court's finding that 

Edward was a tenant at will. The evidence established that 

Anna was the sole record owner of the property, that she 

allowed Edward to reside on the property for an indeterminate 

time without a specific lease and that he had been served 

with proper notice to leave the premises. As Edward elected 

not to attend the trial, the record is devoid of any evidence 

to refute these facts. 

Our consideration of the record leads us to conclude 

that this appeal has been taken without substantial or 

reasonable grounds. We therefore award sanctions against 

Edward pursuant to Rule 32, M.R.App.P., in the amount of 

$500. The sanction shall be paid to the plaintiff, Anna 

Reiter . 

Appeal dismissed. / 

AJ'"zJ~~ Chle Justice