ADAMS v CHENEY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE SUPREME COURT' OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 ROBERT L. ADAMS, Plaintiff and Respondent, LYLE H. CHENEY and SARA CHENEY, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants. LYLE H. CHENEY and SARA CHENEY, husband and wife, Cross-plaintiffs and Appellants, ROBERT L. ADAMS , TONY WASTCOAT, DON PFUTZENREUTER, JAMES W. MAAS and MARILYN L. MAAS, husband and wife, Cross-Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin, The Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Bolinger & Conover, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Morrow, Sedivy, Olson & Eck, Bozeman, Montana Landoe, Brown Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on Briefs: Decided: Filed: - Clerk - December 30, 1982 March 24, 1983 Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f the Court. L y l e and S a r a Cheney w a n t e d t o sell their r a n c h l o c a t e d n e a r B e l g r a d e , Montana. R o b e r t Adams, Bozeman, a realtor 230+ acre They c o n t r a c t e d w i t h associated with Action Realty t o sell the property. of The t e r m s o f t h e a g r e e m e n t included: ". . . You may, i f d e s i r e d , s e c u r e t h e c o o p e r a t i o n of a n y o t h e r b r o k e r , o r g r o u p o f b r o k e r s , i n p r o c u r i n g a s a l e of s a i d property. I n t h e e v e n t t h a t you, o r any o t h e r b r o k e r s c o o p e r a t i n g w i t h you, s h a l l f i n d a buyer r e a d y and w i l l i n g t o e n t e r into a deal for said + wrice a n d t e r m s . o r s u c h o t h e r t e r m s a n d p r i c e a s I may .................................. accept. I h e r e b y a g r e e t o p a y you i n c a s h f o r your s e r v i c e s a commission e q u a l i n amount t o 5% o f t h e a b o v e s t a t e d selling price." (Emphasis added.) .. Adams l i s t e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n t h e M u l t i p l e L i s t i n g S e r v i c e . J a m e s Maas was i n t e r e s t e d i n b u y i n g r a n c h p r o p e r t y Dr. in t h e G a l l a t i n Valley. He was informed of the Cheney p r o p e r t y by h i s a g e n t s , Don P f u t z e n r e u t e r a n d Tony W a s t c o a t of Waite Realty. Maas v i s i t e d chief concern the property during these a number visits was of times. whether the b o u n d a r y of t h e p r o p e r t y b o r d e r e d t h e c o u n t y r o a d . assured Maas t h a t it d i d . and Mr. and On S e p t e m b e r 27, Mrs. Cheney signed 1979, D r . an His east He was and Mrs. "Earnest Money R e c e i p t and Agreement t o S e l l and P u r c h a s e " which a c k n o w l e d g e d t h a t $ 3 , 5 0 0 e a r n e s t money had b e e n p a i d t o C h e n e y s by t h e Maases i n p a r t payment f o r t h e p r o p e r t y . The S e p t e m b e r agreement provided i n paragraph t h r e e : " I f t h e S e l l e r does n o t approve t h i s s a l e within 0 days h e r e a f t e r , or i f s e l l e r ' s title i not merchantable o r insurable and c a n n o t b e made s o w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e t i m e after written notice containing statement of d e f e c t s is d e l i v e r e d t o s e l l e r , t h e n s a i d e a r n e s t money h e r e i n r e c e i p t e d f o r s h a l l be r e t u r n e d t o t h e p u r c h a s e r on demand and a l l r i g h t s o f purchaser terminated unless purchaser w a i v e s s a i d d e f e c t s and e l e c t s to purchase." The thereon could Cheneys wanted retire. effect property Their a large with Maas. to buy property accountant tax Arizona and advised them that they if savings Thus, in exchanged real the they parties included the f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n i n t h e c o n t r a c t on a c o n t i n u a t i o n s h e e t : " I t i s f u r t h e r a g r e e d by s e l l e r s and p u r c h a s e r s t h a t i n t h e event t h e s e l l e r can f i n d s u i t a b l e p r o p e r t y a n d make a r r a n g e m e n t s f o r s u c h p r o p e r t y t o c l o s e by J a n . 15, 1980, t h a t t h e buyer w i l l purchase such property t o e f f e c t a tax f r e e e x c h a n g e w i t h t h e s e l l e r on t h e s a i d 230+/- a c r e s . I f s e l l e r is u n a b l e t o s e c u r e such p r o p e r t y t o e f f e c t a t a x f r e e e x c h a n g e by J a n . 1 5 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e s a l e w i l l be c l o s e d on c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d a s s t a t e d above." A f t e r l o c a t i n g p r o p e r t y i n A r i z o n a , a n o f f e r was p r e p a r e d which t h e Maases w e r e t o s i g n and f o r w a r d t o t h e owner of t h e p r o p e r t y , Fran N i e l s e n . W h i l e Cheneys w e r e veyor to survey the i n Arizona, Cheney p r o p e r t y . Cheneys were n o t t h e r e c o r d o w n e r s o f land that bordered the county Maas employed He found a sur- that the t h e e a s t e r n s t r i p of road. Maas relayed the p r o b l e m t o P f u t z e n r e u t e r , who t h e n c o n t a c t e d kdams and o n o r a b o u t November 5 , Adams c o n t a c t e d Cheney i n A r i z o n a . was completely surprised by the boundary problem Cheney as his f a m i l y had been r a n c h i n g on t h e p r o p e r t y s i n c e 1 9 0 3 . When Cheneys returned from A r i z o n a they gave Maas, through t h e r e a l e s t a t e brokers, t h e o f f e r t o s i g n and, with $500, send t o Arizona. Maas would n o t comply. However, d u e t o t h e b o u n d a r y p r o b l e m , I n a n a t t e m p t t o m o l l i f y Maas, r e a l t o r s Pfutzenreuter and W a s t c o a t p r e p a r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g addendum t o t h e o f f e r on t h e Arizona property: " T h i s t r a n s a c t i o n i s c o n t i n g e n t on t h e a p p r o v a l o f J a m e s Maas of t h e s u r v e y on t h e e a s t b o u n d a r y ( b o r d e r i n g T h o r p e Road) of 230+ a c r e s l o c a t e d i n s e c t i o n 3 1 and 32 o f TIN R 4 E M.P.M., G a l l a t i n County, Montana. " T h i s o f f e r is s u b j e c t t o a n d c o n t i n g e n t on t h e t e r m s of t h e e a r n e s t money r e c e i p t and a g r e e m e n t t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e d a t e d S e p t e m b e r 27, 1 9 7 9 , b e t w e e n J a m e s W. Maas and M a r i l y n L . Maas, p u r c h a s e r s , and L y l e H . Cheney and S a r a F. Cheney, s e l l e r s . " T h i s addendum was p r e p a r e d w i t h o u t a u t h o r i z a t i o n f r o m e i t h e r principal. Upon a d v i c e of counsel, Maas s t i l l would not sign the offer. On December 2 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e owner o f t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y contracted with a t h i r d p a r t y t o sell the property. Closing o c c u r r e d sometime i n J a n u a r y . C h e n e y s s t i l l wanted t o s e l l t h e r a n c h . they assert that the s t r i p of land Even t h o u g h i n q u e s t i o n was u n d e r t h e i r o w n e r s h i p by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , t h e Cheneys p u r c h a s e d the strip from the adjacent landowner for $1,000. This p i e c e o f p r o p e r t y was i n c l u d e d i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t s a l e t o t h e Maases b u t Cheneys added $ 3 , 5 0 0 t o t h e o r i g i n a l p r i c e . On F e b r u a r y 1 2 , 1 9 8 0 , by both parties. No a c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d was s i g n e d mention was made of the "tax free exchange." The Cheneys d i d n o t p a y Consequently, Adams h i s commission. brought the real t h e primary Cheneys c o u n t e r c l a i m e d e s t a t e commission. action to recover a g a i n s t Hdams for b r e a c h o f d u t i e s a s a b r o k e r and f i d u c i a r y d u t i e s t o Cheneys f o r f a i l i n g t o r e p r e s e n t them i n t h e i r d e a l i n g s w i t h Maases. Cheneys c ro s s -c l a i m e d same b r e a c n . They agalnst assert the that other realtors for t h e y do n o t owe any the real e s t a t e c o m m i s s i o n a n d , m o r e o v e r , t h a t Adams i s owing t o them e a r n e s t money. $3,500 the a g a i n s t Maases. offer for Naases They a l l e g e d the Arizona breached they v i o i a t e d Cheneys a l s o the that, property September by not selected 27 cross-claimed submitting an by Cheneys, agreement. the Specifically, t h e c l a u s e on t h e c o n t i n u a t i o n s h e e t o f the c o n t r a c t r e g a r d i n g t h e p u r c h a s e o f p r o p e r t y s e l e c t e d by t h e Cheneys. Cheneys a l l e g e d t h a t t h e i r damage from s u c h b r e a c h is t h e expense i n f i n d i n g t h e Arizona p r o p e r t y , t h e l o s s of t h e t a x s a v i n g s and t h e l o s s of t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y . Adams contends that his duty to the Cheneys p e r f o r m e d when he p r o c u r e d a b u y e r t h a t was r e a d y , and able t o purchase the property. 'Thus, he was willing earned his commission. The Maases complying contract They with contend the reyardlng argue that that express the t h e y were conditions purchase compliance was of of the not justified owners of the eastern strip not the September Arizona property. required not Cheneys d i d - h a v e m e r c h a n t a b l e t i t l e , i . e . , record in since the t h e y were n o t bordering the county road. Cheneys respond to Maases' contention by stressing t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o p a r a g r a p h t h r e e o f t h e S e p t e m b e r 27 a g r e e ment, t h e y had a r e a s o n a b l e merchantable. time p e r i o d t o make t h e t i t l e T h e y , i n f a c t , d i d s o by p u r c h a s i n g t h e q u e s - t l o n a b l e s t r i p from t h e r e c o r d owners. The j u r y f o u n d f o r Adams a n d h e l d t h a t h e r e c o v e r h i s commission, c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s . Furthermore, the jury d i s m i s s e d a l l c l a i m s a s s e r t e d oy t n e C h e n e y s . The C h e n e y s a p p e a l the jury v e r d i c t and p r e s e n t s i x i s s u e s f o r our d e t e r m i n a t i o n : Did 1. refusing to regarding t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse give the appellants' issue of proposed whether discretion its instruction Maases no. breached by 25 their c o n t r a c t w i t h a p p e l l a n t s and i n f a i l i n g t o g i v e a n y i n s t r u c t i o n s with respect t o t h l s breach? Did 2. refusing to refusing t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse allow into appellants' whether title for evidence proposed the i t s d i s c r e t i o n by certain exhibits instructions, subject all property could and regarding be made merchantable within a reasonable period of time? Did 3. giving t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse instruction broker only is 5 which no. responsible that a stated for its d i s c r e t i o n bringing real the in estate parties together? Did 4. ref using nos. 8, owed by t h e District Court abuse t o give the jury appellants' 10, 11, 1 2 , the realtors 13, its d i s c r e t i o n proposed and 14 r e g a r d i n g by instruction speciiic duties t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s and t h e breach of such d u t i e s ? Did 5. t h e District Court abuse i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e c e i v i n g i n t o evidence an unsigned d e p o s i t i o n ? Did 6. giving the t h e D i s t r i c t Court abuse respondents e i g h t peremptory its d i s c r e t i o n by challenges during t h e selection o f t h e j u r y a n d a l l o w i n g a p p e l l a n t s o n l y f o u r challenges? Appellants f i r s t contend t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by n o t giving any i n s t r u c t i o n s on t h e Maases' a l l e g e d breach of t h e September agreement. Specifically, a p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h a t i t was a n a b u s e o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o r e f u s e p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n no. 25. This instruction states: "You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t i f you f i n d t h a t t h e Maases r e f u s e d t o s i g n t h e c o n t r a c t f o r t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y s e c u r e d by t h e C h e n e y s and s u b m i t t e d t o t h e Maases f o r s i g n a t u r e and r e f u s e d t o s e n d $ 5 0 0 . 0 0 i n e a r n e s t money t o hold t h e Arizona p r o p e r t y , t h e n you m u s t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e Maases b r e a c h e d t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h e i r September 27, 1979, c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Cheneys. " According agreement, the to the tax free IJlaases w e r e s e l e c t e d by t h e C h e n e y s . to clause make in the an o f f e r Maases would September on p r o p e r t y then exchange such p r o p e r t y f o r t h e Cheneys' p r o p e r t y t o e f f e c t an a l l e g e d t a x savings. However, p a r a g r a p h t h r e e o f t h e c o n t r a c t r e l i e v e d t h e Maases o f t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n s i f t h e s e l l e r s ' t i t l e is n o t merchantable period of and time cannot after be made written delivered t o the seller. This, so within notice of a such i n essence, reasonable defects is is t h e buyers' e s c a p e c l a u s e , p r o t e c t i n g them f r o m i n c u r r i n g a n o b l i g a t i o n t o purchase property with a defective t i t l e . Upon d i s c o v e r y of t h e p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t C h e n e y s ' t i t l e d i d n o t include t h e s t r i p of land bordering t h e county road, land-locking t h e Cheney p r o p e r t y , Maases were r e l u c t a n t t o make t h e o f f e r on t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y . the Arizona Cheneys property cross-claimed September agreement. was sold against to a Maases I n t h e meantime, third party and the for breach of the They c l a i m t h a t M a a s e s ' failure to make t h e o f f e r on t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y c o n s t i t u t e d a b r e a c h of the September a g r e e m e n t and i n s t r u c t e d on s u c h b r e a c h . the jury should have been W e believe the District Court did not abuse its d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' p r o p o s e d i n s t r u c t i o n no. This p a r t i c u l a r i n s t r u c t i o n is not only misleading, but 25. is an i n c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e law. r e q u i r e s t h e jury t o f i n d a breach if it The i n s t r u c t i o n they determine t h a t Maases d i d n o t o f f e r t o buy t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y . I t makes no p r o v i s i o n f o r t h e e s c a p e c l a u s e t h a t a l l o w s t h e Maases t o a v o i d making t h e o f f e r i f t i t l e i s u n m e r c h a n t a b l e and c a n n o t be made s o w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d o f t i m e . Moreover, we hold the court was correct in not i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y on t h e b r e a c h o f t h e September a g re e - ment. on The tax free clause outlined the continuation s h e e t p l a c e d a n u n r e a s o n a b l e b u r d e n on t h e Maases. seller s e l e c t s property, t h e b u y e r m u s t make a n o f f e r s u c h p r o p e r t y o r he h a s b r e a c h e d t h e c o n t r a c t . making he the offer can if, immediately When t h e on H e can avoid i n accordance with t h e escape c l a u s e , ascertain that title to the sellers' p r o p e r t y is u n m e r c h a n t a b l e and c a n n o t be c o r r e c t e d w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e . T h i s d e t e r m i n a t i o n is s p e c u l a t i v e and t h e b u y e r s h o u l d n o t be d e a l t s u c h a b u r d e n . The b u y e r may be f o r c e d t o e x c h a n g e f o r u n m e r c h a n t a b l e p r o p e r t y o r , i n t h e w o r s t s i t u a t i o n , wind up w i t h p r o p e r t y t h a t t h e s e l l e r has selected for himself. the tax f r e e clause, In the typical situation, without i f t h e b u y e r f i n d s t i t l e t o b e unmer- c h a n t a b l e and c a n n o t be made s o w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e , t h e c o n t r a c t c a n be r e s c i n d e d and a n y payments w i l l be r e t u r n e d t o hlm. As in t h i s case, t h e t a x f r e e c l a u s e f o r c e s t h e buyer t o accept doubtful t i t l e . This Court has held t h a t buyers of r e a l e s t a t e s h o u l d n o t be r e q u i r e d t o d o s o . S i l f v a s t v. Asplund (l933), 93 Montana R a n c h e s Co. we hold t h a t , Mont. 584, 20 P.2d 6 1 ; Bozdech ( 1 9 2 3 ) , 67 Mont. 3 6 6 , 216 P. 319. i n the present context, v. Thus, the tax free clause was i n v a l i d and t h e b u y e r was j u s t i f i e d i n n o t o f f e r i n g t o buy t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y . H e n c e , no b r e a c h o c c u r r e d a n d t h e i n s t r u c t i o n r e g a r d i n g s u c h b r e a c h was p r o p e r l y r e f u s e d . W e a r e n o t r e j e c t i n g t h e use of r e a l p r o p e r t y exchange clauses tools in real estate to effectuate parties should be contracts. the They c a n b e partiest careful ojectives. i n using them and valuable However, specifically p l a c e a c o n d i t i o n i n such a c o n t r a c t t h a t r e q u i r e s merchanta b i l i t y t o be p r o v e n b e f o r e t h e b u y e r m u s t o b l i g a t e h i m s e l f t o purchase exchange p r o p e r t y . Secondly, a p p e l l a n t s contend t h e District Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n be r e f u s i n g t o a l l o w i n t o evidence documents e s t a b l i s h i n g m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y and t h a t a p p e l l a n t s t t i t l e c o u l d h a v e b e e n made m e r c h a n t a b l e w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e p e r i o d of t i m e . Also, a p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h e y were p r e v e n t e d f r o m b e i n g h e a r d on w h e t h e r s u c h e v i d e n c e s h o u l d b e a d m i t t e d . W e n o t e t h a t t h i s o f f e r o f p r o o f was made t o show t h a t M a a s e s violated the tax free clause, n o t t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t Maases d i d n o t p u r c h a s e the Cheney r a n c h b e c a u s e o f t i t l e p r o b l e m s . On the contrary, the Maases d i d eventually purchase the Cheney p r o p e r t y a n d t h e C h e n e y s p u r c h a s e d l a n d i n A r i z o n a . Consequently, s i n c e w e have determined t h e t a x f r e e c l a u s e t o be i n v a l i d and t h a t Maases d i d n o t b r e a c h t h e a g r e e m e n t , we hold that the District these evidentiary questions. C o u r t made correct rulings on Evidence of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y , i n t h e c o n t e x t p r e s e n t e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s , was i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e s of t h e action. F u r t h e r , t h e c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n d e c l i n i n g t o admit t h e evidence i n q u e s t i o n i n o r d e r t o p r e v e n t t h e s u i t from becoming a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n . A p p e l l a n t s a l s o c o n t e n d a f u r t h e r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e District Court i n refusing their proposed instruc- t i o n s on w h e t h e r t i t l e c o u l d b e made m e r c h a n t a b l e w i t h i n a reasonable proposing period their time. of Here instructions so again, the appellants would jury were that find t i t l e c o u l d h a v e b e e n made m e r c h a n t a b l e w i t h i n a r e a s o n a b l e period of time, property. T h e i r f a i l u r e t o d o s o would h a v e c o n s t i t u t e d t h e breach. be o b l i g a t i n g Maases t o purchase t h e Arizona However, s i n c e w e h a v e h e l d t h e t a x f r e e c l a u s e t o invalid, Maases Arizona p r o p e r t y . were Thus, not obligated t h e proposed to purchase instructions the on t h e q u e s t i o n of m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y were i r r e l e v a n t . T h i r d , a p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused its d i s c r e t i o n by i n s t r u c t i n g t h e j u r y t h a t a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r is only responsible f o r bringing t h e p a r t i e s together. was o u t l i n e d i n i n s t r u c t i o n no. This 5: "A r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r e a r n s h i s commiss i o n when he p r o c u r e s a b u y e r who i s r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e t o p u r c h a s e r e a l p r o p e r t y on s u c h t e r m s a s t h e s e l l e r s may agree. The u l t i m a t e s a l e t e r m s need n o t be what t h e b r o k e r ' s c o n t r a c t c o n t a i n s . A b r o k e r is n o t r e q u i r e d t o d o e v e r y t h i n g t o complete t h e s a l e , b u t is o n l y respons i b l e for bringing the p a r t i e s together." The l a w is c l e a r (1980)I Mon t . i n Montana. , 622 P.2d I n B a r r e t t v. 1 8 0 , 37 S t . R e p . Ballard 2038, said: "The law i n t h i s s t a t e i s we11 s e t t l e d . The b r o k e r need n o t do e v e r y t h i n g t o c o m p l e t e t h e s a l e b u t o n l y be r e s p o n s i b l e for bringing the p a r t i e s together. In S h o b e r v. Dean ( 1 9 0 9 ) , 3 9 Mont. 255, 1 0 2 P . 323, t h i s C o u r t s e t t h e s t a n d a r d which should judge broker c a u s a t i o n : we . . . appears t o us t h a t t h e r e can be b u t one a n s w e r : I t was i n t e n d e d t h a t , i f t h e e f f o r t s of Shober s e t i n motion a c h a i n o f e v e n t s which f i n a l l y c u l m i n a t e d i n a s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e n he s h o u l d I If r e c o v e r t h e maximum f e e ; 622 P.2d a t 1 8 6 . (Emphasis added.) 11 1 It . . . Hence, a b s e n t c o n t r a r y t e r m s i n t h e b r o k e r a g e c o n t r a c t , when a b r o k e r b r i n g s a s e l l e r t o g e t h e r w i t h a b u y e r who i s r e a d y , w i l l i n g and a b l e t o p u r c h a s e and a s a l e t a k e s p l a c e a t t e r m s satisfactory t o the s e l l e r , t h e b r o k e r h a s e a r n e d h i s com- mission. T h e r e were no t e r m s ill t h e c o n t r a c t t h a t would o b l i - g a t e t h e broker t o complete t h e s a l e . T h u s , i n s t r u c t i o n no. 5 was a c o r r e c t s t a t e m e n t o f t h e l a w , a n d t h e r e was no a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n i n g i v i n g it t o t h e jury. Fourth, appellants argue that the District Court a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by r e f u s i n g t h e i r i n s t r u c t i o n s r e g a r d i n g d u t i e s owed by t h e r e a l t o r s t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s and t h e breach of such d u t i e s . A p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h a t t h r e e s p e c i f i c d u t i e s a r o s e b a s e d on t h e f a c t s o f the case. The a l l e g e d duties are: (1) The d u t y t o c o n v e y t o t h e Maases t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Cheneys c o u l d e a s i l y c o r r e c t any d e f e c t i n m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y of title as to the s t r i p of land fronting to the Cheneys on the county and the Maases road; (2) together 'The duty so that bring t h e Maases would h a v e no f e a r s a s t o t h e m e r c h a n t a b i l i t y of t i t l e r a t h e r t h a n k e e p i n g t h e two p a r t i e s s e p a r a t e d ; and, ( 3 ) The d u t y n o t t o c h a n g e t h e t e r m s a n d c o n d i t i o n s o f Real Estate Purchase Contract and Receipt for Deposit regarding t h e Arizona p r o p e r t y without t h e e x p r e s s approval of t h e i r p r i n c i p a l s , Appellants i n s t r u c t i o n nos. t h e Cheneys. translated these duties into 8 , 1 0 , 11, 1 2 , 1 3 , a n d 1 4 . proposed W e believe the court properly refused these instructions. As previously discussed, to bring llsting parties together, agreement. realtor has a (1978), Furthermore, duties encompass Lyle 176 full Nont v. Moore . in to 344, 578 614 P.2d 1 8 3 Mont. Newman accomplishing his disclosure, , (1979), F r i s e l l v. faith, Mont. primary d u t y is unless otherwise stated i n the fiduciary duty Watson (19801, a realtor's client. P.2d 308. Trust 1027, 37 599 v. v. McKenna St.Rep. P.2d ( 1 9 6 7 ) , ' 7 1 Wash.2d a LC- ,, 1" 0 Fiduciary First 274, this c " 1026; 336; 520, good 429 P.2d 864; and a c t i n g i n t h e c l i e n t ' s b e s t i n t e r e s t s . Once a b r o k e r i n v o l v e s h i m s e l f w i t h t h e c o m p l e t i o n o f a he must c o n t i n u e t o act i n accordance w i t h transaction, the above fiduciary duties. In the present situation it a p p e a r s t h a t a l l t h e r e a l t o r s assumed a r o l e i n t h e complet i o n of f i d u c i a r y d u t i e s owed they The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d on t h e the transactions. assumed this i n s t r u c t i o n nos. 7, to t h e p a r t i e s by role. These 8 , 9 and 10. duties the r e a l t o r s when are embodied in The j u r y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e s e d u t i e s were n o t breached. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t i n r e f u s i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' proposed instructions based on the three alleged duties o u t l i n e d a b o v e b e c a u s e t h e r e was n o f a c t u a l b a s i s f o r s u c h instructions. This Court has held t h a t it is n o t e r r o r t o r e f u s e i n s t r u c t i o n s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . Burlington Northern, 600, 37 St.Rep. 93; Inc. (1980), Porter v. Mont. Crum-McRinnon Penn v. , 6 0 5 P.2d Building Co. ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Mont. 3 8 1 P.2d 74, 794. The specific duties e x p r e s s e d by t h e a p p e l l a n t s e i t h e r d i d n o t e x i s t o r w e r e n o t breached. The b r o k e r s had no d u t y t o c o n v e y t o Maases t h a t t i t l e defects could be corrected immediately. T h i s would force t h e r e a l t o r s t o make a d i f f i c u l t l e g a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n which t h e y a r e n o t r e q u i r e d t o do. Secondly, bring the realtors the p a r t i e s together Each p a r t y was c o n t a c t e d did not breach the duty to t o a l l e v i a t e t h e t i t l e problem. immediately through their agents. F u r t h e r , t h e a g e n t s were a c t i n g i n t h e b e s t i n t e r e s t s of a l l parties as tney were ac.cively trying to solve the title problem. T h i r d l y , w e b e l i e v e t h e d u t y n o t t o change t h e Arizona o f f e r w i t h o u t Cheneys' Initially, we a p p r o v a l is i l l u s o r y . n o t e t h a t Adams was n o t i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r e p a r a t i o n o f addendum. Pfutzenreuter involved. However, thereof if and such Wastcoat a duty were the existed, the persons the breach i s i m m a t e r i a l and d i d n o t p r e j u d i c e Cheneys b e c a u s e i t was i n e f f e c t u a l ; Maases would s t i l l n o t s i g n t h e o f f e r . F i f t h , t h e a p p e l l a n t s a s s e r t t h e D i s t r i c t Court abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n by deposition. receiving into evidence The b a s i s of t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' an unsigned o b j e c t i o n is t h a t t n e y had n o t waived t h e l a c k o f s i g n a t u r e i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h R u l e 3 0 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. On A p r i l 2 3 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e d e p o s i t i o n o f F r a n N i e l s e n , t h e owner of t h e A r i z o n a p r o p e r t y , was t a k e n i n A r i z o n a . deposition, both Cheneys and Maases were A t the represented by counsel. A t the deposition, N i e l s e n was a s k e d i f s h e wanted t o r e v i e w t h e deposition when c o m p l e t e d and t h e n s i g n i t . indicated t h a t she did. She However, on t h e s i g n a t u r e l i n e a t t n e end o f t h e d e p o s i t i o n , t h e words " s i g n a t u r e waived" a r e typed. Nothing i n t h e d e p o s i t i o n i n d i c a t e d t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o t t h e waiver. I n t h e morning o f t h e d a y t h e d e p o s i t i o n was t o b e i n troduced, the c o u n s e l r e c e i v e d c o p i e s of t h e d e p o s i t i o n . reading of the was deposition underway, Cheneys o b j e c t e d t o it a s i t was u n s i g n e d . Af t e r counsel for H e p r e s e n t e d no e v l d e n c e of p r e j u d i c e d u e t o t h i s p r o c e d u r a l i r r e g u l a r i t y . W reject appellants' e suppress the 32(d)(4), M.R.Civ.P., t h e form of suppress deposition c o n t e n t i o n b e c a u s e no m o t i o n t o was made at the outset. Rule p r e s c r i b e s t h a t a n y i r r e g u l a r i t i e s of the deposition a r e waived unless a motion to t h e d e p o s i t i o n i s made w i t h r e a s o n a b l e p r o m p t n e s s a f t e r such d e f e c t is, o r w i t h due d i l i g e n c e might have been, ascertained. in this situation appellants did not object to the i r r e g u l a r i t y u n t i l a f t e r t h e r e a d i n g of t h e d e p o s i t i o n i n t o e v i d e n c e had commenced. the deposition in C o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t s had r e c e i v e d the morning prior to irregularity s h o u l d h a v e b e e n d i s c o v e r e d to suppress evldence made regarding accordingly. trial; thus, the t h e n and a m o t i o n since no s i g n a t u r e was p r e s e n t e d , t h e waived Furthermore, we c a n n o t a s c e r t a i n a b a s i s from which t o c o n c l u d e a p p e l l a n t s w e r e p r e j u d i c e d by t h e i r r e g u l a r i t y i n t h e d e p o s i t i o n . Sixth, the appellants contend the District Court a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n by g i v i n g t h e Maases f o u r p e r e m p t o r y challenges, cnallenges, the and realtors four as peremptory a group four challenges to peremptory appellants. Essentially, a p p e l l a n t s urge the court t h e Maases t o view and t h e r e a l t o r s a s o n e g r o u p and c o n s e q u e n t l y a l l o c a t e them o n l y four peremptory challenges. Section challenges. 830, 38 25-7-224, entitles MCA, each Lauman v . Lee ( 1 9 8 1 ) , St.Rep. 499, peremptory challenges positions. The approves to Mont the Maases two of , of to four 626 P.2d separate codefendants who occupy hostile assert the Maases and appellants and . granting that r e a l t o r s do n o t occupy h o s t i l e p o s i t i o n s . the party the On t h e c o n t r a r y , are realtors the represented by i d e n t i c a l counsel. I n r e v i e w i n g t h e lower c o u r t ' s g r a n t i n g of a d d i t i o n a l peremptory challenges, we have held that the complaining p a r t y m u s t show h e was p r e j u d i c e d by s u c h a c t i o n . K e l l y P i p e Co. v. Safeway S t o r e s , P.2d ble ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 53. Inc., et al. 511, 549 P.2d L e a r y v. 813; A s h l e y ( 1 9 3 5 ) , 1 0 0 Mont. 312, 47 I n L e a r y we d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t o e s t a b l i s h r e v e r s i - error, the complaining exhausted h i s peremptory party must challenges; show: (1) t h a t ( 2 ) t h a t he has f e r e d m a t e r i a l i n j u r y from t h e a c t i o n of t h e c o u r t ; that as a result thereof s a t o n t h e case. 1 6 9 Mont. a t 5 1 6 , 549 P.2d he suf- and (3) o n e o r more o b j e c t i o n a b l e j u r o r s a t 816. These r e q u i s i t e f i n d i n g s were t a k e n from a n a n n o t a t i o n on t h e e f f e c t s o f a l l o w i n g e x c e s s i v e peremptory c h a l l e n g e s . Annot., 95 ALR2d 9 5 7 , 963 ( 1 9 6 4 ) . It s t a t e s , " [ t l h e numer- ical weight of a u t h o r i t y i n c i v i l c a s e s supports a r u l e t h a t a judgment w i l l n o t be r e v e r s e d f o r e r r o r i n a l l o w i n g one o r more p e r e m p t o r y challenges in excess of that provided s t a t u t e , u n l e s s t h e c o m p l a i n i n g p a r t y shows t h a t h e h a s . suffered material injury from the action of the by .. court." Numerous c a s e s f r o m f i t t e e n jurisdictions were cited sup- porting t h i s rule. The W a s h i n g t o n Supreme C o u r t h a s a l s o a r t i c u l a t e d t h a t prejudice must be shown to Evans ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 26 Wash.App. cause reversal. 251, 612 P.2d In S t a t e v. 442, t h e c o u r t h e l d t h a t p a r t i e s a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o have any p a r t i c u l a r j u r o r serve. U n l e s s p r e j u d i c e r e s u l t s from a l l o w i n g an e x c e s s i v e number of peremptory challenges, reversible error has not b e e n c o m m i t t e d . S e e a l s o , C r e e c h v. C i t y o f A b e r d e e n ( 1 9 0 6 ) , 4 4 Wash. Dilemma, --A The cally 44; T r a u t m a n , S e r v i n g S u b s t a n t i a l J u s t i c e 7 2 , 87 P . 40 Wash. L. underlying peremptory receive a fair parties with Rev. rationale challenges, and 270, 278 ( 1 9 6 5 ) . of is voir to insure impartial jury. jurors who are dire, that is n o t It favorable and to their specifilitigants t o provide position, e v e n t h o u g h t h i s is o f t e n t h e o b j e c t i v e and r e s u l t . quently, lenges if the does court's action not prejudice the allowing complaining r e c e i v e d a f a i r and i m p a r t i a l j u r y . been accomplished and an additional party, Consechalhe has I n e s s e n c e , t h e end h a s irregularity i n t h e means s h o u l d not cause reversal. On t h e o t h e r Foundation hand, i n Hunsaker ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 305, v. Sozeman D e a c o n e s s 588 P.2d 493, t h i s Court r e c o g n i z e d t h a t p r o v i n g p r e j u d i c e may b e p r a c t i c a l l y impossible. We held i n Hunsaker that the correctness of the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n r e g a r d i n g p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s , when i t was a c t u a l l y made, on a p p e a l . of However, s h o u l d be p a r t of t h i s would r e q u i r e a n a d e q u a t e r e c o r d t h e lower c o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n . t i o n was made: t h e review p r o c e s s Thus, t h e f o l l o w i n g sugges- "The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s s h o u l d s e r i o u s l y c o n s i d e r t h e u s e of t h e p r e t r i a l c o n f e r ence a s t h e b e s t procedure t o be used i n r e s o l v i n g q u e s t i o n s s u c h a s t h e number o f p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e s t o be a l l o w e d e a c h side. I f f o r some r a r e r e a s o n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h o l d s no p r e t r i a l c o n f e r e n c e , t h e q u e s t i o n of peremptory c h a l l e n g e s s h o u l d b e r a i s e d by a p p r o p r i a t e w r i t t e n m o t i o n f i l e d b e f o r e t h e commencement o f j u r y s e l e c t i o n , and i t s h o u l d s e t f o r t h a l l f a c t s and r e f e r e n c e s t e n d i n g t o In a n y support h i s claim of h o s t i l i t y . case, t h e opposing p a r t y o r p a r t i e s s h o u l d be g i v e n a d e q u a t e t i m e t o respond t o t h e claims of h o s t i l i t y . "The t r i a l c o u r t s h o u l d , a s a b a r e m i n i mum, r u l e on t h e p e r e m p t o r y c h a l l e n g e i s s u e before t h e questioning of j u r o r s begins. To a f f o r d a b a s i s f o r r e v i e w , i t should expressly set f o r t h i n t h e record t h e r e a s o n s f o r i t s r u l i n g and t h e f a c t s o n which it r e l i e s i n making i t s d e c i sion." 1 7 9 Mont. a t 3 1 8 , 588 P.2d a t 501. If t h e r e i s n o t a s u f f i c i e n t r e c o r d by w h i c h t h e C o u r t c a n review t h e District Court r u l i n g , t h e n t h e conduct of the j u r y must be examined i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h L e a r y . In the case a t bar, the p r e t r i a l conference did not determine t h e a l l o c a t i o n of peremptory challenges. more, Further- c o u n s e l d i s p e n s e d w i t h t h e r e c o r d i n g o f v o i r d i r e and t h e a p p e l l a n t s objected t o t h e a l l o c a t i o n of t h e c h a l l e n g e s a f t e r t h e q u e s t i o n i n g of t h e j u r o r s was c o m p l e t e a n d w h i l e t h e c h a l l e n g e s were being e x e r c i s e d . The b a s i s o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' o b j e c t i o n was t h a t two o f t h e r e a l t o r s and t h e Maases w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e same l a w firm. The c o u r t o v e r r u l e d t h e o b j e c t i o n and s t a t e d , " t o s a y there is no adversity because of the fact that the firm r e p r e s e n t s two g r o u p s of p e o p l e is n o t c o g e n t a s f a r a s t h i s C o u r t is c o n c e r n e d . " B u n s a k e r i n d i c a t e s t h a t a s a b a r e minimum, t o a f f o r d a b a s i s f o r review, t h e t r i a l c o u r t should e x p r e s s l y s e t f o r t h in the record the reasons for its ruling and the facts on which it relies in making its decision. The brief inter- change between the court and appellants' counsel does not meet this minimum requirement. We do not have a sufficient record to determine the correctness of the District Court's ruling when it was actually made. Thus, as determined by Hunsaker, we must examine the conduct of the jury in light of the Leary decision. Presently, the appellants have not convinced this Court that the realtors and the Maases were not entitled to separate peremptory challenges. Most importantly, the appellants have not shown any material injury suffered from the court's action or that any objectionable jurors sat on the case as a result of the court's action. Finally, even though not raised by any of the parties, we note an apparent typographical error in the judgment. The jury verdict lists the damages at $9,229.25 but the judgment lists them at $9,299.25. The jury verdict as approved by the foreperson is controlling and damages are $9,229.25. The judgment is ordered amended accordingly. A£ f irmed. 2 Chief Justice ! & , ~&&~ We concur:
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.
