HOPKINS v SCOTTIE HOMES INC

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14442 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA - GERALD F. HOPKINS and MARY M. HOPKINS, Plaintiffs and Respondents, SCOTTIE HOMES, INC., a Corporation, Chief Industries, Inc., a Corporation, and THE FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF GLASGOW, MONTANA, a corporation, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Robert Hurly and Paul Hoffmann, Glasgow, Montana Harrison, Loendorf, Poston and James T. Harrison, Sr., Helena, Montana James T. Harrison Sr., argued, Helena, Montana For Respondents: Ask and Pratt, Roundup, Montana Thomas M. Ask argued, Roundup, Montana Anderson, Symmes, Brown, Gerbase, Cebull Billings, Montana Submitted: Decided: & Jones, February 2, 1979 M R2 cm J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by d e f e n d a n t s , S c o t t i e Homes, I n c . , and F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank o f Glasgow, from a n o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Mussel- s h e l l County, d e n y i n g t h e i r motion f o r a change of venue. P l a i n t i f f s G e r a l d and Mary Hopkins purchased a new " B o n a v i l l a " m o b i l e home from d e f e n d a n t S c o t t i e Homes, I n c . , on J u n e 1, 1976. They e x e c u t e d a s e c u r i t y agreement t o f i n a n c e t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e , and t h e s e c u r i t y agreement was a s s i g n e d by d e f e n d a n t S c o t t i e Homes, I n c . , d e f e n d a n t F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Glasgow. to The m o b i l e home w a s d e l i v e r e d t o and s e t up on p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y n e a r Roundup, Montana. W i t h i n a few months t h e r o o f of t h e m o b i l e home began t o l e a k whenever i t r a i n e d c a u s i n g s u b s t a n t i a l damage t o t h e home's i n t e r i o r . P l a i n t i f f s n o t i f i e d defendant S c o t t i e Homes, I n c . , of t h e problem and a l s o d e f e n d a n t Chief Indus- tries, Inc., t h e m a n u f a c t u r e r of t h e m o b i l e home. After numerous l e t t e r s , phone c a l l s , and t h e t h r e a t of l e g a l a c t i o n , t h e r o o f of t h e m o b i l e home was r e s h i n g l e d d u r i n g t h e summer o f 1977, b u t t h e problem p e r s i s t e d . When p l a i n - t i f f s n o t i f i e d d e f e n d a n t s t h a t t h e r e p a i r work had n o t c u r e d t h e d e f e c t s , d e f e n d a n t s answered t h a t t h e w a r r a n t y p e r i o d had e x p i r e d and w i t h i t t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n . T h i s prompted p l a i n t i f f s t o g i v e d e f e n d a n t s a second n o t i c e of r e c i s s i o n , c a n c e l l a t i o n and r e v o c a t i o n , as t h e y had done p r i o r t o h a v i n g t h e r o o f r e p a i r e d t h e p r e v i o u s summer. On J a n u a r y 2 8 , 1978, p l a i n t i f f G e r a l d Hopkins climbed o n t o p o f t h e r o o f t o t r y t o d i v e r t t h e f l o w of w a t e r t h a t w a s s t i l l r u n n i n g i n t o t h e home. Because i c e had formed on t h e r o o f , h e s l i p p e d and i n j u r e d h i s back. Plaintiffs t h e r e a f t e r brought t h i s a c t i o n seeking: " [ I ] c a n c e l l a t i o n of p u r c h a s e and s e c u r i t y a g r e e m e n t s and of b a l a n c e s due on p u r c h a s e of a m o b i l e home, [2] t h e removal of t h e m o b i l e home from t h e i r l a n d , [ 3 ] r e f u n d o f a l l payments t h e y had made on t h e i r m o b i l e home purc h a s e , [ 4 ] damages f o r b r e a c h o f c o n t r a c t r e g a r d i n g p u r c h a s e o f t h e m o b i l e home, and [ 5 ] damages f o r back i n j u r i e s a l l e g e d l y s u f f e r e d by o n e p l a i n t i f f when h e f e l l o f f t h e i c y r o o f o f t h e m o b i l e home." The a c t i o n was f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , M u s s e l s h e l l County, t h e c o u n t y i n which p l a i n t i f f s r e s i d e and i n which t h e m o b i l e home i s l o c a t e d . Defendants S c o t t i e Homes, I n c . , and F i r s t N a t i o n a l Bank of Glasgow moved f o r a change o f venue t o V a l l e y County, t h e c o u n t y i n which e a c h d e f e n d a n t ' s p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s i s located. The s o l e i s s u e f o r r e v i e w by t h i s C o u r t i s whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n denying d e f e n d a n t ' s motion f o r change o f venue. This Court has held t h a t " [ t l h e general r u l e governing venue i n c i v i l a c t i o n s i s t h a t t h e a c t i o n s h a l l be t r i e d i n t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t r e s i d e s a t t h e commencement o f t h e a c t i o n . " McGregor v . S v a r e ( 1 9 6 8 ) , 1 5 1 Mont. The g e n e r a l r u l e w i t h i t s 520, 523, 445 P.2d 571, 573. e x c e p t i o n s i s c o d i f i e d i n s e c t i o n 93-2904, s e c t i o n s 25-2-101, 25-2-102, and 25-2-108 R.C.M. 1947, now MCA, which pro- vides i n pertinent part: . . ". t h e a c t i o n s h a l l be t r i e d i n t h e county i n which t h e d e f e n d a n t s , o r any of them, may r e s i d e a t t h e commencement of t h e a c t i o n A c t i o n s upon c o n t r a c t s m a y b e t r i e d in the which t h e c o n t r a c f - w a s - -e performed, - to b county and a c t i o n s f o r t o r t s in..t h - c o u n t y where the e , s (Empna: i s added.) t o r t was committed .. . ... " This Court has s t a t e d t h a t t h e r u l e with r e s p e c t t o t h e performance e x c e p t i o n i s " t h a t t h e p l a c e of performance must b e e v i d e n t e i t h e r by ( a ) t h e e x p r e s s terms of t h e c o n t r a c t , o r ( b ) by n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n t h a t a c o u n t y o t h e r than t h a t of t h e defendant's residence i s intended t o b e t h e c o u n t y of performance." S a v i n g s and Loan Assn. Brown v . F i r s t F e d e r a l ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 149, 153, 394 P.2d 1017, 1019. N e i t h e r p a r t y s e e k s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e p l a c e of p e r formance by t h e e x p r e s s t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , and s o t h i s C o u r t must d e c i d e whether a c o u n t y o t h e r t h a n t h a t of d e f e n d a n t s ' r e s i d e n c e i s i n t e n d e d t o b e t h e c o u n t y of performance by n e c e s s a r y i m p l i c a t i o n . I n determining t h i s , t h e Court may c o n s i d e r t h e c o n t r a c t - p l a i n t i f f s ' and supporting a f f i d a v i t s u b m i t t e d w i t h t h e i r memorandum i n o p p o s i t i o n t o change of venue. S t a t e e x r e l . I n t e r s t a t e Lumber Co. v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 1 8 ) , 54 Mont. 602, 608, 172 P. 1030, 1033. When a f f i d a v i t s s u p p l i e d by o n e o f t h e p a r t i e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e motion f o r change of p l a c e o f t r i a l are u n c o n t r a d i c t e d , t h e s t a t e m e n t s of f a c t s s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n must be t a k e n a s true. F r a s e r v. C l a r k ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 128 Mont. 1 6 0 , 173, 273 P.2d 105, 1 1 2 . D e f e n d a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e o n l y c o n t i n u i n g performance c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s w a s t h e payment of i n s t a l l m e n t s t o t h e bank i n Glasgow. P l a i n t i f f s , i n t h e i r a f f i d a v i t , say t h a t d e l i v e r y of t h e m o b i l e home t o M u s s e l s h e l l County was a t a l l t i m e s c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e p a r t i e s ; t h a t p l a i n t i f f s had no c o n t a c t w i t h t h e bank a t any t i m e ; t h a t t h e p l a c e of performance was where t h e home was d e l i v e r e d and s e t - u p ; and t h a t t h e p r o p e r venue f o r t h i s a c t i o n i s M u s s e l s h e l l County i f one c o n s i d e r s t h e convenience of t h e w i t n e s s e s . I n Hardenburgh v. Hardenburgh ( 1 9 4 4 ) , 1 1 5 Mont. 469, 478, 146 P.2d 151, 154, t h i s C o u r t s t a t e d : "Agreement must b e c l e a r . A m e r e d i r e c t i o n by t h e s e l l e r a s t o t h e p l a c e of payment i s n o t s u f f i c i e n t , n o r c a n a promise t o r e m i t t o c o v e r t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e b e sued upon by t h e s e l l e r i n t h e c o u n t y o f t h e p o i n t t o which t h e r e m i t t a n c e i s t o b e made." T h i s C o u r t , i n Brown v . F i r s t F e d e r a l S a v i n g s Assn. & Loan ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 4 Mont. 1 4 9 , 154, 394 P.2d 1017, 1020, reviewed a number of c a s e s i n v o l v i n g venue q u e s t i o n s l o o k i n g f o r a common element. The C o u r t s t a t e d t h a t " [ i l n a l l of t h e s e c a s e s t h e c o u n t y o f a c t i v i t y , a s r e f l e c t e d by t h e t e r m s of t h e c o n t r a c t , w a s deemed t h e p l a c e of performance." (Emphasis added.) The c o n t r a c t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d o e s e x p r e s s l y p r o v i d e t h a t " [ c ] u s t o m e r w i l l pay S c o t t i e Homes f o r B l o c k i n g w a t e r and sewer hookup," a c t i v i t y which would n e c e s s a r i l y t a k e p l a c e w i t h i n M u s s e l s h e l l County. I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t s e c t i o n 93-2904, now s e c t i o n 25-2-102 MCA, R.C.M. 1947, p r o v i d e s f o r a t o r t e x c e p t i o n i n ad- d i t i o n t o t h e c o n t r a c t performance e x c e p t i o n . In the instant c a s e , p l a i n t i f f s have a l l e g e d t o r t i o u s c o n d u c t by d e f e n d a n t s i n M u s s e l s h e l l County r e s u l t i n g i n p h y s i c a l i n j u r i e s . This a l l e g a t i o n , o n i t s f a c e , when c o n s i d e r e d w i t h t h e a l l e g a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g performance of t h e c o n t r a c t , a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o uphold t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t p r o p e r venue f o r t h i s a c t i o n i s i n M u s s e l s h e l l County. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e %A$. Chief J u s %Lu-c& tice /I Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d i s s e n t i n g : I d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e r e a s o n i n g of t h e m a j o r i t y a s i t c o n c e r n s t h e " c o u n t y o f a c t i v i t y " and u s i n g t h e c a s e o f Brown v . F i r s t F e d e r a l S a v i n g s & Loan A s s ' n . , supra, a s authority. The " t o r t e x c e p t i o n " i n s e c t i o n 93-2904, now s e c t i o n 25-2-102 MCA, R.C.M. 1947, i n my v i e w , c l e a r l y d i d n o t i n t e n d t o p e r m i t a f a l l from a r o o f t o b e a t t a c h e d t o a c o n t r a c t a c t i o n f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f venue.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.