Court Opinion

ID: 9510752
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 21:59:13.941744+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:08:05.528717
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RICE
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
¶42 I concur with the Court’s analyses and holdings on Issues 1,2 and 4.1 dissent from the Court’s holding on Issue 3.1 would hold that the District Court’s finding that there was no evidence of wrongful occupation was clearly erroneous, given the evidence to the contrary, particularly Charles Archambault’s own testimony that he had continued to reside on the property and had leased the property to Lyman Denzer, and the evidence of haying and grazing of the property by third parties allowed by Archambaults, which resulted in Weter’s loss of CRP funds.
¶43 I disagree that these damages could be obtained only by filing a separate wrongful detainer action. Archambaults were contractually liable for the “full damages allowable by law” for failing to immediately surrender peaceable possession. Clearly, they failed to do so. While the damages caused thereby were recoverable within an unlawful detainer action, I would hold that they were properly sought within Weter’s action here, and would reverse the District Court on that issue.