Title: BOUCHER v STEFFES
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 12207
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: November 27, 1972

No. 12207 I N T H E SUPREIqE C O U R T O F TI-TE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 EDGAR BOUCHER , P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, - V S - JOE STEFFES , J R . , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Sixteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Alfred B. Coate, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant : William McNamer argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana. For Respondent: Gene Huntley argued, Raker, 24ontana. Submitted: October 20, 1972 Decided 'NQV2 7 4972 Filed: NOV2 '7 4972 M r , Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This i s an appeal from the denial of a motion for change of venue from Fallon County t o Yellowstone County, Issue: Should the question of venue be reexamined when- ever there i s a change of parties defendant? The facts giving r i s e t o t h i s action are not i n dispute. On M a y 4, 1968, defendant Joe Steffes, Jr, was involved i n an automobile accident i n western North Dakota. With him was h i s father-in-law, p l a i n t i f f Edgar Boucher, and one John W. Trudo. The accident involved a head-on collision with a vehicle operated by Edward J. Byer. The Byer car had been purchased that day from the Erwin Heberle Ford Agency a t Baker, Montana, Byer was killed i n the collison and a l l three occu- pants of defendant's vehicle were injured, Following the accident defendant Steffes moved h i s home from Baker i n Fallon County, t o Yellowstone County. Trudo f i l e d s u i t against defendant Steffes and the adminis- t r a t r i x of the e s t a t e of Byer i n federal court on February 10, 1970. O n the same day plaintiff Boucher f i l e d against the same defendants i n the s t a t e court i n Fallon County. Decedent Byer had no l i a b i l i t y insurance or other resources which could be used t o pay a judgment, i f one were rendered against him, A question arose: Whether, i n view of the fact Byer had purchased the car that day, the insurance policy of the Heberle Ford Agency might attach by virtue of the holding of t h i s Court i n Irion v. Glens Falls Ins. Co,, 154 Mont, 156, 461 P.2d 199? After l i t i g a t i o n i n the federal court determined the Heberle Ford Agency policy did not afford protection t o Boucher or Trudo, the administratrix of ~ y e r ' s e s t a t e petitioned the d i s t r i c t court for discharge on the grounds there were no assets, no insurance, and therefore, no reason t o continue with the administration of the estate, The court dismissed the e s t a t e a s a party defendant with prejudice, Defendant Steffes then moved for a change i n the place of t r i a l t o Yellowstone County on the grounds that he had a right t o t r i a l i n the county of h i s residence; that the accident had occurred i n the s t a t e of North Dakota; that he could not thereto- fore have moved for a change of place of t r i a l because defendant t o administratrix was a proper party/the action and a resident of Fallon County; that the joinder of defendant administratrix was conditional - ab i n i t i o and because of her voluntary dismissal the plaintiff had not met the legal requirements of pleading and proving a cause of action against her i n order t o maintain venue, o r i n the alternative did not bring the action against her i n good f a i t h i n the legal sense required t o establish and maintain venue i n Fallon County. Further, that t r i a l in Fallon County would be prejudicial t o defendant Steffes because p l a i n t i f f i s a resident of Fallon County and that the proper county for t r i a l i s Yellowstone County. The d i s t r i c t court denied the motion and t h i s appeal i s taken from the ruling, Defendant c i t e s no Montana authority t o support h i s posi- tion that where there are multiple defendants when the cause i s instituted and where the resident defendants are dropped, the remaining defendant or defendants have a right t o change the venue t o t h e i r jurisdiction. H e notes, quoting Rapp v, Graham, 145 Mont. 371, 401 P.2d 579, that the right of a defendant for t r i a l i n the county of h i s residence i s an important right. W e agree with the rules s e t forth there, but the fact situations of the two cases are not similar. Rapp was a contract case with just one defendant, Nor a r e we persuaded by the out of jurisdiction cases cited by defendant: Gunnoe v. West Virginia Poultry Co-op Ass'n, 115 W.Va, 87, 174 S.E. 691, 93 A.L,R, 944; Turner v. Superior Court, 3 Ariz.App, 414, 415 P.2d 129; Lester v, Rose, 147 W.Va, 575, 130 S.E.2d 80; Delaney v, Atterbury, 189 Okla. 361, 116 P.2d. 968, ~ o n t a n a ' s venue statutes, T i t l e 93, Ch. 29, R.C,M, 1947, were taken from the s t a t e of California and that jurisdiction has ruled on the very problem presented t o us here. Before discussing the rule s e t forth by a series of California cases, we note that Kansas early adopted the California view, Hawkins v. Brown, 78 Kan. 284, 97 I ? . 479. The California view also appears t o be followed by federal cases, where the question arises as t o whether the plaintiff has joined a resident of the s t a t e i n order t o prevent removal. For a discussion of the federal view see Cyclopedia of Federal Procedure, Vol. 2, 5 3.71. A long l i n e of California cases has followed an early established rule that a motion for a change of venue w i l l be determined by the status of the parties and pleadings a t the time the moving party appears i n the action. Remington Sewing Machine Co. v, Cole, 62 Cal. 311(1882); Ferguson v. Koerber, 69 Cal.App. 47, 230 P. 476; Waft v. Innis, 57 Cel.App~'637; 135 P.2d 29; California Collection Agency v. Fontana, 61 cal.App.l;d 648, 143 P.2d 507, 510; White v. Kaiser Frazer Corp. 100 Cal,Appe3ct/ 754, 224 P,2d 833;Freeman v. Dowling, 219 Cal. 213, 25 P.2d 980; Bancroft's Code Practice and Remedies, V. 2, 5 1006, p, 1447. W e find the rule a s stated i n California Collection Agency most succinctly s t a t e s the rule that we adopt herein: 11 In our opinion the rule, supported by reason and by authority, i s that upon the hearing of the motion for change of venue under the circumstances presented here, the r e a l issue for determination by the t r i a l court was whether p l a i n t i f f , i n joining the resident defendant as a party, had reasonable grounds for the belief i n good f a i t h that plaintiff had a cause of action against the resident defendant. I 1 The decision of the t r i a l court i s affirmed. We Concur: judge Associate Justice Cas