Title: TOBACCO RIVER LUMBER CO INC v
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 14785
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 21, 1979

No. 14785 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1979 TOBACCO RIVER LUMBER COMPANY, INC . , a Montana corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS. LOUIS A. YOPPE et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert S. Keller argued, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Fennessy, Crocker, Harman & Bostock, Libby, Montana Thomas R. Bostock argued, Libby, Montana Submitted: November 1, 1979 Decided : M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f Tobacco River Lumber Company, Inc., f i l e d an a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendants Yoppe a l l e g i n g i n Count I an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r a delay i n deeding real property t o p l a i n t i f f , and a l l e g i n g i n Count I1 an a c t i o n f o r damages f o r t h e c o s t of a survey with r e s p e c t t o t h e property re- f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The matter was t r i e d before a jury i n December 1978 i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Nineteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t of t h e S t a t e of Montana, i n and f o r t h e County of Lincoln. The jury awarded no damages f o r t h e delay i n Count I and one-half of t h e survey c o s t s i n Count 11. P l a i n t i f f t h e r e a f t e r moved f o r a new t r i a l as t o both counts, b u t t h e c o u r t denied t h e motion. P l a i n t i f f appeals from t h e f i n a l judgment and o r d e r s denying t h e motion f o r a new t r i a l . P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t , a Montana corporation primarily engaged i n t h e wood products i n d u s t r y , negotiated with defendants-respondents f o r t h e purchase of an i r r e g u l a r l y shaped tract of land of approximately 400 a c r e s s i t u a t e d near Eureka, Montana. These n e g o t i a t i o n s r e s u l t e d i n t h e execution of a c o n t r a c t f o r deed dated June 1, 1966. The purchase p r i c e w a s paid on o r about January 31, 1972. According t o t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed, t h e Yoppes were t o provide Tobacco River with a warranty deed conveying t i t l e t o t h e property and a p o l i c y of t i t l e insurance a t t h e t i m e of t h e l a s t payment o r within a reasonable t i m e t h e r e a f t e r , such period n o t t o exceed 60 days. The Yoppes provided Tobacco River with a warranty deed on May 1 4 , 1974, and t i t l e insurance on June 6, 1974. A t t h e t i m e of t h e f i n a l payment, t h e Yoppes requested t h e i r a t t o r n e y , Joseph F. Fennessy, Jr., of Libby, Montana, t o prepare a deed and o b t a i n t i t l e insurance. The l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed w a s compiled from various t a x n o t i c e s and d i d n o t g i v e a s u f f i c i e n t l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n . The t i t l e company, t h e r e f o r e , requested a survey. The Yoppes took s t e p s t o arrange f o r a survey i n A p r i l 1973 when M r s . Yoppe contacted a surveyor from M i s - soula who agreed t o do a boundary survey f o r her. By t h i s t i m e Tobacco River had constructed homes on t h e premises and d e s i r e d t o have an i n t e r i o r survey of t h e various t r a c t s involved. Tobacco River contacted t h e s a m e surveyor f o r an i n t e r i o r survey, with a r e q u e s t , and an agreement, t h a t t h e survey would be completed before J u l y 1, 1973, when t h e new Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act would t a k e e f f e c t . I n mid-June, however, t h e Missoula surveyor informed t h e p a r t i e s t h a t he had n o t been a b l e t o g e t t o t h e survey because of t h e p r e s s of business and would n o t be a b l e t o before J u l y 1, 1973. The p r e s i d e n t of Tobacco River then obtained t h e s e r v i c e s of a surveyor from B i l l i n g s who proceeded with d i s p a t c h t o do t h e boundary survey and t h e i n t e r i o r survey and f i n i s h e d t h e surveys i n September 1973. H e submitted a b i l l f o r t h e i n t e r i o r survey, which w a s paid by Tobacco River, and he submitted a b i l l f o r t h e e x t e r i o r survey, which w a s n o t paid by t h e Yoppes o r anyone else. Because of t h e f a i l u r e t o pay, t h e e x t e r i o r survey was n o t f i l e d by t h e surveyor, and no deed could be delivered. I n May 1974, t h e Yoppes' a t t o r n e y prepared a deed from t a x n o t i c e s , t h e Lincoln County tract book, and o t h e r papers, which provided f o r 379 a c r e s , more o r l e s s . his was pos- s i b l e a s s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, had been repealed. The deed was recorded on May 1 4 , 1974. A t t h e same t i m e , t h e t i t l e company issued a policy of t i t l e insurance e f f e c - t i v e May 1 4 , 1974, using t h e l e g a l d e s c r i p t i o n prepared by t h e ~ i l l i n g s surveyor and contained i n t h e u n f i l e d survey, r e f l e c t i n g 357.77 a c r e s . The policy of t i t l e insurance w a s d e l i v e r e d t o Tobacco River on June 6, 1974. There i s no evidence t h a t t h e boundary survey was ever f i l e d . Three major a r e a s of c o n f l i c t e x i s t between t h e p a r t i e s regarding t h e d e t a i l s of t h e survey and t h e circumstances under which it was conducted. F i r s t , with r e s p e c t t o t h e area of land t o be surveyed, a p p e l l a n t i n s i s t s t h a t respon- d e n t s requested a survey of t h e e n t i r e p a r c e l of land. Respondents, however, contend t h a t they requested a survey of only a p a r t i c u l a r problem area of t h e land, t h e meander l i n e of t h e Tobacco River, and t h a t a p p e l l a n t requested a survey of t h e remainder. Second, with r e s p e c t t o t h e c i r - cumstances under which t h e survey w a s conducted, respondents i n s i s t t h a t t h e surveyor gave a p p e l l a n t an estimate regard- i n g t h e c o s t s of t h e survey before contacting respondents. Appellant a l l e g e s t h a t respondents w e r e furnished an e s t i - m a t e of t h e c o s t s a f t e r t h e surveyor had contacted t h e respondents. F i n a l l y , a p p e l l a n t a l l e g e s and respondents deny t h a t respondents had knowledge of a survey conducted by a second surveyor h i r e d by appellant. The estimate given by t h e o r i g i n a l surveyor w a s $2,000 f o r t h e boundary survey. The survey b i l l i n question t o t a l e d $4,323.63 f o r t h e e x t e r i o r survey. Counsel f o r both p a r t i e s agreed t h a t t h e claim f o r damages i n Count I would c o n s i s t s o l e l y of t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e purchase p r i c e f o r two and one-half years. The i s s u e s presented t o t h i s Court on appeal are: 1. W a s t h e v e r d i c t of t h e jury as t o Counts I and I1 supported by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence and t h e l a w of t h e case? 2. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n f a i l i n g t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t as t o Counts I and I I ? 3. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court err i n refusing p l a i n t i f f ' s proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 15 and i n giving I n s t r u c t i o n No. There are pages upon pages of charges and counter- charges made i n t h e b r i e f s which would compel a much longer opinion than i s warranted by the l a w and f a c t s involved here i f w e were t o dignify most of them with extended discussion. Aside from t h e f a c t t h a t respondents a r e responsible, under t h e c o n t r a c t , t o f u r n i s h t i t l e and insurance which could n o t be accomplished without a survey, t h e c o u r t gave t o t h e jury I n s t r u c t i o n No. 13: "You are i n s t r u c t e d t h a t the laws which e x i s t a t t h e time and place of making of a c o n t r a c t , and where it i s t o be performed, e n t e r i n t o and form p a r t of it, as i f they w e r e expressly r e f e r r e d t o o r incorporated i n i t s terms." This w a s followed by t h e controversial I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 4 , which i s confusing b u t i s the s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, and states t h e l a w i n existence a t t h e t i m e of t h e making and o r i g i n a l performance d a t e of t h i s contract. I n p a r t it simply s t a t e s : "Any person who d e s i r e s t o . . . sell o r t r a n s f e r any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped t r a c t of land, t h e acreage which cannot be determined without a survey, must cause t h e s a m e t o be surveyed, p l a t t e d , c e r t i f i e d , and f i l e d i n t h e o f f i c e of t h e county c l e r k and recorder of t h e county i n which s a i d land lies, . . . before any p a r t o r - portion of t h e same is s o l d o r transferred; . . . It i s unlawful - f o r % f u r t h e r s a l e s t o be made without f u l l compliance with t h e provisions of t h i s chapter, and t h e sur- veying and p l a t t i n g of t h e whole t r a c t . . ." (Emphasis added.) The s t a t u t e goes on and s t a t e s t h a t t h e county c l e r k and recorder s h a l l n o t record any deed which purports t o convey any i r r e g u l a r l y shaped tract unless t h e A c t has been com- p l i e d with. I n s t r u c t i o n No. 16 leaves l i t t l e doubt as t o t h e respon- s i b i l i t y of t h e p a r t i e s : "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t the c o n t r a c t provided t h a t Defendants Yoppe would f u r n i s h a policy of t i t l e insurance; i f you f i n d t h a t they could n o t g e t a policy of t i t l e insurance without a survey, then you must f i n d t h a t they a r e l i a b l e f o r t h e reasonable c o s t of such survey." The p a r t i e s agree t h a t t h e parcel of land i s i r r e g u l a r . Section 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, i n f o r c e a t t h e t i m e , does apply t o t h i s kind of a land t r a n s f e r , i.e., i r r e g u l a r and unable t o compute acreage without a survey. The c o u r t , by i t s own i n s t r u c t i o n and t h e evidence i n t h e record, should have granted a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t on Count I as a m a t t e r of law. F a i l u r e t o do so i s r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r . The jury ver- d i c t on Count I w a s rendered contrary t o t h e evidence and t h e l a w of t h e case. Regarding Count 11, t h e r e i s j u s t no s u b s t a n t i a l credi- b l e evidence t o support a " s p l i t " of t h e f e e due t h e second surveyor i n equal p a r t s a s w a s done by t h i s jury. N o surveyor o r any o t h e r witnes3 t e s t i f i e d a s t o any division. Attorney Joe Fennessy t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s had agreed t o s p l i t t h e fee. There w a s testimony as t o estimates and a c t u a l c o s t s , b u t t h a t was a l l . Additionally, t h e c o u r t i n s t r u c t e d t h e jury on t h e law of t h e case as follows: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t c o n t r a c t damages must be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e i n both t h e i r nature and o r i g i n ; damages which a r e n o t c l e a r l y as- c e r t a i n a b l e , o r which are a m a t t e r of m e r e speculation cannot be t h e b a s i s of recovery. A s applied t o t h i s case, the damages alleged by P l a i n t i f f must be c l e a r l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e , t h e o f f s e t s claimed by Defendants must a l s o be c l e a r l y ascertainable, and t h e burden is upon each p a r t y t o so prove, i n accordance with t h e s e i n s t r u c t i o n s . " This i n s t r u c t i o n a p p l i e s with equal f o r c e t o t h e argu- ment of f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages by respondents a g a i n s t t h e appellant. There was no s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence on t h i s point. The value of the claimed o f f e r of a portion of t h e land was lacking. N o evidence of a formal tender t o a p p e l l a n t was ever shown. There w a s no a u t h o r i t y t o support t h e proposition t h a t under s e c t i o n 11-614, R.C.M. 1947, a portion of an i r r e g u l a r t r a c t could i n f a c t be offered o r t h a t a p p e l l a n t could be compelled t o accept less than i t s c o n t r a c t bargain o r be penalized f o r f a i l u r e t o m i t i g a t e damages . The holdings of t h i s Court on o t h e r i s s u e s do n o t warrant a discussion of I n s t r u c t i o n No. 15 and the proposed I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 4 . W e would comment, however, t h a t while quoting a s t a t u t e verbatim may r e c i t e t h e applicable l a w , o f t e n t i m e s t h i s p r a c t i c e causes confusion. I n cases where multiple problems o r circumstances are within t h e same s t a t u t e , o r a s t a t u t e i s badly drawn, it i s f a r b e t t e r t o develop your own i n s t r u c t i o n . I n a c l o s e circumstance it could be e r r o r t o use t h e s t a t u t e , i f f o r no other reason than t h a t it has misled t h e jury. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s reversed with i n s t r u c t i o n s t o e n t e r judgment f o r a p p e l l a n t on Count I as a m a t t e r of law. Count I1 is remanded f o r a new t r i a l . J u s t i c e W e concur: 2 4.wccd4 Chief J ~ ~ s t i c e ( . - )bL L , )Li7 J u s t i c e s