Title: MILKOVICH v ORR
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12803
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 13, 1975

L U R A No. 12803 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1975 MILKOVICH , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, A R T H U R ORR and C A R O L J. ORR, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Frank E. B l a i r , Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Chester L. Jones argued, Virginia City, Montana Carl Davis, Dillon, Montana For Respondent : Corette, Smith and Dean, Butte, Montana R. D. Corette, Jr. argued, and Gerald R. Allen, argued, Butte, Montana Filed : Submitted: January 13, 1975 Decided : FEB 13 1 9 ~ M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. This is an appeal from a judgment entered i n Madison County decreeing s p e c i f i c performance of a c o n t r a c t f o r s a l e of r e a l property. The case was t r i e d without a jury. Find- ings of f a c t and conclusions of law were entered. During t h e spring of 1972, p l a i n t i f f Lura Milkovich learned t h a t defendants O r r had land f o r s a l e near Ennis, Montana. The O r r s advised M r s . Milkovich t o contact one Armitage, t h e i r r e a l e s t a t e broker. O n April 1 7 , 1972, Lura Milkovich signed a "Receipt and Agreement t o S e l l and Purchase". Armitage then s e n t t h i s c o n t r a c t t o Costa Rica f o r t h e signatures of t h e O r r s . They signed t h e c o n t r a c t and returned it t o A r m i - tage. A duplicate o r i g i n a l was then mailed t o Milkovich. The c o n t r a c t described t h e property a s : "11 Acres West of and adjoining present County Road i n Section 23, Township 5 South, Range 1 West, M P M , including 1 0 inches of Jack Creek Water. " It a l s o provided "Survey t o be applied f o r and paid f o r by buyer." I n compliance with t h e c o n t r a c t , Milkovich ordered a survey during t h e l a t e spring of 1972. A preliminary survey was prepared by an unlicensed engineer and t h e r e a f t e r one Donald Fenton was contacted t o complete a survey. Fenton d i d so on August 1 2 , 1972. The survey w a s approved by Armitage, O r r s ' r e a l e s t a t e agent, and by t h e i r counsel. Milkovich deposited $500 with Armitage. The t r i a l court s e p c i f i c a l l y found Armitage had written a u t h o r i t y t o a c t f o r O r r s i n t h e s a l e and t h a t both O r r s r a t i - f i e d h i s actions. The i s s u e s on appeal a r e : (1) Did t h e t r i a l court e r r i n granting s p e c i f i c per- formance where t h e c o n t r a c t d i d not describe with p a r t i c u l a r i t y cne Land sold? (2) Did the trial court err in granting specific geriournance where the contract description was inconsistent with the final description? (3) Did the trial court err in inserting into the judgment a provision for payment of a broicerls commission when the broker is not a party to the action? As to issues 1 and 2, appellants Orr cite Ryan v. Davis, 5 Yonc. 505, 511, 6 P. 339, for the proposition that the legal description set forth in the written agreement is not complete and exclusive of all other lands and therefore is not sufficient to permit specific performance. The agreement which the trial court ordered to be specifi- s a l l y enforced was signed by Milkovich on April 17, 1972. It was signed by the Orrs in Costa Rica a few days later. For sev- eral months after the agreement was signed there was no question raised as to the location of the property covered by the agree- ment. Performance was refused by the Orrs under the pretense that a mortgage release could not be obtained. Everyone at that time knew exactly the piece of property agreed upon. Both agents of the Orrs, Mr. Armitage and Mr. Jones, approved the survey secured by Milkovich, which described the property by metes and bounds. Some extrinsic evidence is necessary to connect the des- cription in the original signed agreement, but the sellers' agents provide the connection. Such extrinsic evidence is ad- missible to explain a description in a writing. In Ryan it is said: " * * * it is not essential that the description have such particulars and tokens of identifica- tion as to render a resort to extrinsic aid entirely needless when the writing comes to be applied to the subject-matter. The terms may be abstract and of a general nature, but they must be sufficient to fit and comprehend the property which is t h e s u b j e c t of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n , s o t h a t , with t h e a s s i s t a n c e of e x t e r n a l evidence, t h e description, without being contradicted o r added t o , can be connected with, and applied t o , t h e very property intended, and t o t h e exclusion of a l l other property * * *." It i s a fundamental p r i n c i p l e of law i n Montana t h a t a memorandum may c o n s i s t of several writings. Anderson v. KFBB Broadcasting Corp., 143 Mont. 423, 391 P.2d 2 . The t r i a l court used several of t h e writings of t h e p a r t i e s and we see no e r r o r i n s o doing under t h e f a c t s and circumstances here. Here, Milkovich not only made t h e down payment but secured t h e survey and had it approved by t h e O r r s ' agents. These matters made t h e property d e s c r i p t i o n c e r t a i n . A s t o a p p e l l a n t s ' i s s u e 3--the t r i a l c o u r t i n s e r t e d i n t o t h e judgment a paragraph which reads: "7. That a r e a l e s t a t e commission of 6% of t h e s e l l i n g p r i c e of t h e above-described property s h a l l be paid t o Jess C. Armitage a s r e a l e s t a t e agent f o r t h e Defendants, S e l l e r s , s a i d commission s h a l l be $660.00, t o be paid a t t h e time of c l o s i n g * * * . ' I There was no i s s u e before t h e c o u r t on t h a t subject. Armitage w a s not a p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n , and it is obvious t h e r e a l e s t a t e commission cannot be l i t i g a t e d here. The real e s t a t e agent here d i d not follow t h e property owners' d i r e c t i o n s t o r e q u i r e c e r t a i n r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. Clearly, t h e owners do not owe a commission under circumstances such a s these. Accord- ingly t h i s i t e m of t h e judgment is reversed and s e t aside. In a l l other r e s p e c t s t h e judgment is affirmed. Each p a r t y s h a l l pay its own c o s t s . We concur: Chief Justice