Opinion ID: 882798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: dismissal of wrongful annexation claim

Text: In Kudloff's complaint, he alleged that he owned the real property which the City annexed, and he requested that the annexation be set aside as void. A party vested with legal title is the real party in interest in a dispute involving real property. Blakely v. Kelstrup (1985), 218 Mont. 304, 306, 708 P.2d 253, 255. Clearly, at the time Kudloff filed his complaint, he was the real party in interest entitled to bring the action under Rule 17(a), M.R.Civ.P., which states that [e]very action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest. After the commencement of this action, Kudloff sold the subject real property. On June 24, 1992, in his response to the City's second motion for summary judgment, Kudloff stated that he [did] not seek a judgment or injunction on annexing the property and clearly, based upon the relinquishment of the property, that is outside his scope of available remedies. Rather, Kudloff claimed that he sold the real property in order to mitigate his damages, and expressed his intent to seek damages for losses he alleged resulted from the forced sale of the real property. However, Kudloff at no time amended his complaint to reflect his new intentions. In this case, an amended complaint was required when the theory of Kudloff's case and his alleged damages changed. The purpose of a complaint, and subsequent amendments, is to provide adequate notice to the defendants of the nature of the actions they must defend against and the remedy which is sought. Here, more than two years after the original complaint was filed, Kudloff changed entirely the nature of the action without providing the required notice to the defendants. Therefore, the District Court properly dismissed the wrongful annexation action.