FRASER v EDMISTEN
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 14965 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 JOSEPH FRASER, Plaintiff and Appellant, VS . DONALD D. EDMISTEN, Defendant and Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Chester L. Jones, Virginia City, Montana For Respondent : Burgess, Joyce, Prothero & Whelan, Butte, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 25, 1980 Decided : SEP 8 - 798p Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . Court. Shea p l a i n t i f f , J o s e p h H. Madison County delivered the Opinion of the F r a s e r , a p p e a l s from a judgment i n District Court denying his claim for r e s t i t u t i o n of payments made u n d e r a n o r a l c o n t r a c t f o r t h e p u r c h a s e of Edmisten, defendant's tavern. counterclaimed in The d e f e n d a n t , the alternative Donald D. for specific p e r f o r m a n c e o r f o r f e i t u r e t o him o f t h e downpayments made by Fraser. The trial court granted only forfeiture of the downpayments. Although p l a i n t i f f Fraser r a i s e s four i s s u e s , t h r e e of them are moot because they are directed at Edmisten's c o u n t e r c l a i m f o r s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e which t h e t r i a l c o u r t did not grant. court's order Nor h a s Edmisten refusing to grant appealed his from t h e t r i a l counterclaim for s p e c i f i c performance. A c c o r d i n g l y , t h e s o l e i s s u e on a p p e a l i s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of t h e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment p e r m i t t i n g f o r f e i t u r e of t h e payments. A purchaser who of voluntarily terminates W affirm. e r e a l p r o p e r t y under an o r a l the contract cannot agreement recover p a r t i a l p a y m e n t s on t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e s o l o n g a s t h e s e l l e r is w i l l i n g and a b l e t o p e r f o r m h i s p a r t o f P e r k i n s v. Allnut Although Fraser ( 1 9 1 3 ) , 47 Mont. relies in part on t h e agreement. 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 3 0 P. section 1, 1-2. 28-1-104, MCA, which c o d i f i e s an e x c e p t i o n t o t h i s g e n e r a l r u l e t h e s t a t u t e h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n h e r e . It provides: "Whenever by t h e t e r m s o f a n o b l i g a t i o n a p a r t y thereto incurs a f o r f e i t u r e or a l o s s in the n a t u r e o f a f o r f e i t u r e by r e a s o n o f h i s f a i l u r e t o c o m p l y w i t h i t s p r o v i s i o n s , h e may b e relieved therefrom upon making full compensation t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y , except i n t h e c a s e of a g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t , w i l l f u l , o r f r a u d u l e n t b re a c h of d u t y . " W h a v e c o n s t r u e d t h i s s t a t u t e t o mean e " t h a t a person may o b t a i n r e l i e f u n d e r it i n any c a s e where h e s e t s f o r t h f a c t s which a p p e a l t o t h e c o n s c i e n c e o f a c o u r t o f e q u i t y . " Lewis v. Starlin 1 2 7 , 128-29. ( 1 9 5 4 ) , 1 2 7 Mont. 477-78, 267 P.2d F o r f e i t u r e c a s e s i n v o l v e two c o m p e t i n g s o c i a l policies. The encourages enforcement general rule of technically deficient. 267 P.2d a t 477, 474, set forth agreements Lewis v. a t 128. i n Perkins, though Starlin, they supra, (1976), 171 relying on Y e l l o w s t o n e may On t h e o t h e r h a n d , we h a v e n o t e d Mont. 212, 215, C o u n t y v. 411, 417, 1 4 5 P.2d 5 1 6 , 518. 557 Wight P a r r o t v. P.2d 819, (1943), S e c t i o n 28-1-104, 820, 1 1 5 Mont. MCA, strikes a b a l a n c e between t h e s e c o m p e t i n g p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s . grants relief upholds from forfeiture forfeitures in be 1 2 7 Mont. t h a t t h e law d o e s n o t f a v o r n e e d l e s s f o r f e i t u r e s . Heller supra, the in case most of a instances, "grossly It but negligent, w i l l f u l , o r f r a u d u l e n t b r e a c h o f d u t y by t h e p e r s o n s e e k i n g relief from f o r f e i t u r e . " Here t h e t r i a l court found that F r a s e r had i n d e e d r e p u d i a t e d t h e c o n t r a c t . To be (1) t h a t either unable entitled the to relief, had to Edmisten, seller, Fraser was unwilling to carry out the contract; or had c o m m i t t e d no " g r o s s l y n e g l i g e n t , breach of the contract, while ( 2 ) t h a t he, willful, affirmatively f a c t s t h a t a p p e a l t o a c o u r t of establish or Fraser, or fraudulent forth The t r i a l equity." setting court was n o t s a t i s f i e d w i t h h i s p r o o f n o r do w e s e e any r e a s o n t o upset the t r i a l c o u r t ' s decision. The trial court able t o carry out c o n t r a c t was n o t found that the contract. in writing t h e s t a t u t e of f r a u d s , and Edmisten Thus, was the therefore willing fact that and the i n v i o l a t i o n of should not permit Fraser t o p r e v a i l i n h i s a t t e m p t a t r e c o v e r i n g h i s c o n t r a c t payments. A clear factual dispute existed resolved i n f a v o r of on this Edmisten. question, and was it Fraser contends t h a t t h e f e d e r a l t a x l i e n s on t h e p r o p e r t y s t i l l e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e of t r i a l d e m o n s t ra t e d E d m i s t e n ' s i n a b i l i t y t o t r a n s f e r c l e a r But title. Edmisten testified at length concerning his a s s e t s , s o l v e n c y and a b i l i t y t o pay o f f t h e l i e n and p r o v i d e clear t i t l e t o Fraser. clear title when He the s a i d h e would h a v e p r o v i d e d parties signed a contract. a The e v i d e n c e s u f f i c e s t o j u s t i f y a f i n d i n g i n f a v o r of E d m i s t e n on t h i s i s s u e . The trial court also found that Edmisten made no m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s t o F r a s e r and t h u s c o n c l u d e d t h a t F r a s e r had n o t made a showing s u f f i c i e n t t o move a c o u r t o f e q u i t y to relieve him o f t h i s conclusion. finding that or the forfeiture. The e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s The e v i d e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o j u s t i f y t h e Edmisten was "ready, willing, and able" t i t l e i n s u r a n c e or an a b s t r a c t of furnish either Fraser. the title to E d m i s t e n t e s t i f i e d t h a t he would h a v e p r o v i d e d o n e other testified when that the the contract proposed was written signed. He contract Fraser. the title to The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t E d m i s t e n had d i s c h a r g e d the federal l i e n s encumbering tax lien supports these Edmisten had paid further between p a r t i e s e x p r e s s l y r e q u i r e d him t o g u a r a n t y c l e a r a l l of to that findings. renewed t h e back the was the property "of Fraser tavern's s t a t e t a x e s on t h e except record." The admitted liquor he the evidence knew license premises. for and that had Furthermore, F r a s e r ' s a t t o r n e y i n t r o d u c e d i n t o e v i d e n c e a c e r t i f i e d copy of the premises. notice At of a federal that time, tax lien encumbering the h e s t a t e d t h a t i t was on f i l e i n t h e Madison County C l e r k and R e c o r d e r ' s O f f i c e . The d e t a i l s o f t h e l i e n a g a i n s t t h e p r o p e r t y were r e a d i l y a c c e s s i b l e t o Fraser. He cannot complain, therefore, that he was not able to learn the specifics of the tax liens. The judgment of the District Court is affirmed. We Concur: Chief Justice / I ' ,'/ r'\\\ Justices V
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.
