Court Opinion

ID: 9546045
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:24:02.875099+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:15:55.575415
License: Public Domain

MR, JUSTICE AN6STMAN
dissenting:
On motion for rehearing, defendant Rose Monson' again contends that the court erred in not requiring Carol Ann Poepping to be made a party defendant. Her contention is that defendant Rose Monson had the right to the benefit of the testimony of Carol Ann Poepping to sustain the presumption that the Lincoln Avenue property held in the name of Carol Ann Poepping was a gift to her from her husband, the plaintiff, and in consequence the proceeds from the sale of the Lincoln Avenue property used to purchase the Blue Cloud Ranch was all her money, in which plaintiff had no interest, and hence, that plaintiff has no interest *50in the property, but that it belongs to defendant Rose Monson and Carol Ann Poepping as joint owners with the right of survivorship as the deed to them declares.
Plaintiff contends that defendant did not, by her answer, claim title through her daughter Carol Ann Poepping. The rule is that the plaintiff in a suit to quiet title need not deraign his title in his complaint. Thomson v. Nygaard, 98 Mont. 529, 41 P.2d 1; Nadeau v. Texas Company, 104 Mont. 558, 69 P.2d 586, 593, 111 A.L.R. 874; Polson Sheep Co. v. Owen, 110 Mont. 601, 106 P.2d 181. And a defendant who seeks to have title quieted in him need do no more than if he were the plaintiff seeking to quiet title in himself as plaintiff. 74 C.J.S., Quieting Title, § 70b, p. 102. His pleading need not set forth the evidence by which he expects to prove his title. Id. p. 103, note 45.
Here defendant Rose Monson alleged generally that she was the joint owner with Carol Ann Poepping of the property in question. She was entitled to the benefit of the testimony of Carol Ann Poepping to sustain the presumption that the latter held the Lincoln Avenue property as a gift from her husband. Defendant made a long offer of proof as to what Carol Ann Poepping would testify to. In substance, it would have sustained the presumption of a gift to her of the Lincoln Avenue property and that the proceeds from the sale of the property were hers and hers alone. That proffered evidence should have been considered by the trier of the facts as evidence tending to sustain the presumption of a gift.
Likewise, the offer of proof showed that Carol Ann Poepping would testify that defendant owned a one-half interest- in the Blue Cloud Ranch; that defendant deeded to Carol Ann Poepping property on 904 Peosta Street for the one-half interest in the Blue Cloud Ranch, all pursuant to an arrangement agreed to by plaintiff, Wilfred Poepping.
Here, both plaintiff and defendant Rose Monson concede that Carol Ann Poepping owns a one-half interest in the Blue Cloud Ranch. The only issue in controversy is whether plaintiff *51or Rose Monson owns the other one-half interest. That question can be determined only by first determining who was the owner of the Lincoln Avenue property. In order to make that determination, Carol Ann Poepping was a necessary and indispensable party.
If the judgment as now rendered stands, defendant would undoubtedly have some rights against Carol Ann Poepping for having transferred the Peosta Avenue property to her without receiving anything in return.
The rights of Carol Ann Poepping may not thus be affected by litigation in which she was not a party. On further consideration of the case, on motion for rehearing, I think the court should have ordered her in as a party and received her testimony under section 93-701-1. In consequence I think the motion for rehearing should be granted or the opinion changed.