PARCEL v MYERS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

am:iiuclo PARCEL, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, S - MERT.,IN W, MYERS, et. n i . , Defendants and Respondents. APTTEA?, FROM: District C o u r r t of the T e n t h J u d i c i a l Di.s"Lrici:., In and for the Cnuni,y of Ferqns, The Honorable R. D. McPbilLips, Judge presiding. F'or Aypel1an.t: Mark L. Stermitz, S t a n f o r d , Montana For Respondents: . William E Berger , L e w i s t - o w n , Montana Hauge, Ober & Brown, fifxvr~" Montana Suh~iitt:ed on Briefs: Nnv. 7 9 , Decided: ."," Clerk December 2 8 , 1 9 8 4 1984 Mr. Jiist i.ce Frank 1. Morrison, Jr. 7 , del i v e r e d t h e Opini.on of t h e Court, P a r c e l appea1.s from t h a t p o r t i o n of t h e judgment. e n t e r e d by tlhe D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Tenth J u d i c i - a l D i s t r i c t denyinn; him an award f o r c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . A p p e l l a n t , J a c k Hugo P a r c e l , ary 2 , f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t on Febru- r e g u e s t i n q r e f o r m a t i o n of 1981, a c o n t r a c t f o r deed f o r hi.s p u r c h a s e of r e a l e s t a t e and also i . s s e r t i n y c l a i m s o f fraud negligent and seliers, against a n d William Smith and Rona2.d F. responsible Parcel ntisreprosentation for claimed rlainagez; under the subject $10,000 his defective i n clamaqes fraud c1ai.m. the Bastin, Myers, surveyors legal $25,000 and description. i n punitive Bastin an(? Smith motion t.o d i s m i s s t h e f r a u d c l a i m ctgainst them. filed a The t r i . a ? court. d i s m i s s e d a p p e l l a n t ' s actiacm a g a i n s t t h e s u r v e y o r s w i t h p r e j u d i c e when a p p e l l a n t f a i l e d t o respond t o t h i s n o t i o n t o dismi.sc., against Myers Bastin answered, c o u n - l - e r e l a i m e and arid Smith cross-cIajmed indemnity. motions for All to d i s m i s s and motions f o r surnmary juclgment f i l e d by r e s p o n d e n t s and t h i r d p a r t y d e f e n d a n t s were d e n i e d , Thc a c t i o n was t r i e d t o t h c c o u r t on January 3 1 , 1983, Finclingis, conclusions December 13, 1 9 8 3 , and judpent thereon were filed on The d i s t r i c t judge reformed t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed i n the amount of $1,500, denied a l l o t h e r c l a i m s a g a i n s t Myers, o r d e r e d n l i p a r t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c o s t s a n d a t t o r n e y f e e s , h u t f a i l e d t o r u l e on khe t h i r d p a r t y a c t i o n , P a r c e l a p p e a l s o n l y o n t h e i s s u e o f a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Jack Parcel p~~rehased a parcel. of real Mer1i.n and Marcia Myers on o r a b o u t J u l y 9 , s e l l agreement described home cons:isti.ng of hoiise, the property as estate 1.979. From The buy- "Merlin W. Myers shop and 1 1 . 5 7 a c r e s mol-e o r l e s s inmiediately west o f Lewistown. " N e g o t i a t i o n s on t h e p u r c h a s e price and the conditioris of the buii.dings required three b u y s e l l agreements t o be d r a f t e d b ~ $ f n r e h e F i n a l c o n t r a c t t No p u r c h a s e p r i c e p e r f o r deed was e x e c u t e d i n August 1 9 7 9 , a c r e was e v e r t h e s u b j e c t o f nego-kist;.ons n o r were p e r a c r e kerms p r i n t e d on t h e f a c e o f t h e f i n a l b u y - s e l l agreement o r t h e r e s u l t a n t c o n t r a c t For deed. Parcel required t h a t Myers have a new c c r t i f i . c a t e of s u r v e y p r e p a r e d and rmcorded w i t h i n a reasonab1.e t i m e a f t e r t h e c l o s i n g of t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . Parcel's r e q u i r e m e n t of a s u r v e y a s c o n d i t i o n of t h e s a l e , was t o a s s u r e him t h a t Myers had clear title ownership and of the property within the f e n c e s wlrich were r e p r e s e n t e d t o Parcel. a s t h e b o u n d a r i e s of t h e l a n d he was p u r c h a s i n g . Smith completed t h e s u r v e y a f e w days p r i o r t o t h e s i g n i n g of t h o c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d . Smith was unlicensed, Bastin correct i n all. respects. tion on the the survey leqa1l.y Paroc:! confirmed t h a t t h e d e s c r i p - s u r v e y matched f o r deed p r i o r contract certified Si.nce to the 1.egal. d e s c r i p t i o n closi-na t h e sale. on The the survey indicated t h a t t h e property contained 1 1 . 4 6 a c r e s instead of t h e 1 1 - 5 7 a c r e s r e p r e s e n t e d on t h e b u y - s e l l document. consumsited deficiency the land purchase despite this Parcel .13.-acre . Parcel descr.ption was of first hi:: alerted property to a problem in the f a l l o f in the legal 1980 when he r e c e i v e d h i s t a x s t a t e m e n t which r e p r e s e n t e d h i s ownership o f s l i g h t l y more t h a n 1 2 a c r c s . Af.trr' i n v e s t i g a t i o n , he di.scerr- e r e d t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f s u r v e y d r a f t e d by Smith and c e r t i f i e d l q r R a s t i n war; i n e r r o r . defective Ueseripti.on of t h e p r o p e r t y on th.e s u r v e y commenced a t .tile c d q r o f t h e county road ( t h e s o u t h e r n bounciary) w h i c h was 30 f e e t n o r t h o f t h e t r u e p o i n t of b e g i n n i n g , way . The actual. t h e c e n t e r Line o:f t h e county r i g h t - o f measurements confor~ned t o the true b o u n d a r i e s of t h e p r o p e r t y had t h e p r o p e r s t a r t i n g p o , i i ~ t been rt?i'c?renced. The resu1.t 5-r; . t h a t a s t r i p o f land t h i r t y f e e t wide and a p p r o x i m a t e l y seven hundred f e e t l o n g was i n c l u d e d nn t h e n o r t h e r n edge of t h e p r o p e r t y , to which Myers d i d n o t have t i t l e and could a o t c c o n v e y , Smith"; f i e l d work, Besirin d i d n o t s u p e r v i s e nor d i d he c o u f i r m t h e a c c u r a c y o f t h e survey p r i o r t o h i s c e r t i f i c a t i o n . Minut: t h a t a r e a r c s e r v e d for t h e riqht-<.IS:-way, t h e a r e a the f e n c e c o n t a i n e d within 10.86 a c r e s . Parcel filed an a c t i o n t o h a v e t h e c o n t r a c t For deed reformed s o a s t o repre-' s e n t t h e proper and l e g a l description o f t h e l a n d he purchased show a r e d u c t i o n of t h e sa:Les p r i c e t o r e f l e c t t h e de-, crease i n acreaqe. Parcel Eilc?d c l a i m s a g a i n s t bo.t.l) Myers and t h e s u r v e y o r s , Bast in and S n i t h , f o r negli.gent m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of t h e t o t a l acreage. The d i s t r i c t judge denied damage cl.aims, but retluced t h e s a l e s p r i c e $ 1 , 5 0 0 . Parcel." A H . p a r t i e s were r e s p o n s i b l e for: indi.vi.dua1 c o s t s and a t t o r - n e y ' s Fees. The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s wheklier it was a n abuse o f d i s c r e t i o n f o r t-he D i s t r i c t Court t o o r d m e a c h p a r t y t o b e a r h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . A p p e l l a n t c l a i m s a s t a t u t o r y righ'r. to c o s t s p u r s u a n t t o 75-10-101(3) and ( 5 1 , MCA, r;ince t h e c a s e i n v o l v e s t i t l e tc: real property disagree. The whi.ch resulted in a n award o f s p e c j . f i c language of t h e $1,500. st.atute provides: "When c o s t s ,allowed, of c o u r s e , to plaintiff. c o s t s a r e a l l o w e d , o f c o u r s e , t o the p l a i n t i f f T o n a judgment in - f a v o r in t h e f o l l o w i n g cases: his - --. o . W e . " 13) i n an a c t i o n f o r t h e r e c o v e r y of money o r damages, e x c l u s i v e o f i n t e r e s t , when plaintiff r e c o v e r s o v e r $50; ""(5 i n an a c t i o n which i.nvojl~ies t h e t i t l e o r possession o r r i g h t of possesr.ion of r e a l e s t a t e (emphasis added) ." I n t h i . s c a s e , t h e "judgment i n h i s f a v o r " was a $ 1 , 5 0 0 r e f o r m a t i o n o f t h e o o n t ~ m c tpurc11a:;e p r i c e , and n o t an a c t i o n i.nvolvi.ng the t i t l e t o t h e p r o p e r t y s u b j e c t t o t h e c o n t r a c t o r a darnage a c t i o n . Appellant c o r r e c t l y argues t h a t a l l o c a t i o n o f c o s t s are l e f t t o t h e d i s c r e t i o n o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court i n t h o s e a c t i o n s not. mentioned i n t; 25-10-lo:!, A award o f c o s t s i n an n MCB. a c t i o n t o reform a c o n t r a c t i s d i s c r e t i o n a r y . We f i n d no a b u s e o f t h e D i s r r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s c r e t i o n t o o r d e r all. p a r t i e s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r t h e i r own c o s t s 3nd a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . Appellant thxk fortifies his argumeat with s i n c e he i s t.he p r e v a i l i n g pa.rty, c o s t s and a t % o r n e y s a statutory o r contractual provision, a r e not recoverable, 6 4 1 F. 21? 1175. contention The general, r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t fees a r e recoverable. absent the S L i t e r s v. Lee Furthermore, a t t o r n e y :fees ( ? . 9 8 2 ) , 197 Nant. 182, t - h i s Court r e c e n t l y held that t h e r e i s no p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y where b o t h p a r t i e s g a i n a victo- ry hut: a l s o s u f f e r a i o s s . P . 2 ~ 1 354, 357, 4 1 %.Rep. rcforsnation of contrack Rsrlidsen v, l o s t on a1.1 h zqainst: Piiyer and t h e s u r v e y o r s . (1984), 6 8 5 P a r c e l p r e v a i l e d on 1 90, 1 4 9 3 . but Taylor e al.?.egations Li.kewise, Nyer won on t h e f r a u d and n e g l i g e n t m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o l n a c t i o n s a g a i n s t him, a n d c o n c u r r e n t l y l o s t on the i s s u e o f r e d u c t i o n o f t h e rice, The t r i a l c o u r t " pix- o r d e r t h a t ea.cl.1 p a r t y b e a r h i s own c o s t s and a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s was p r o p e r . The D i s t r i c t Court d i d n o t make a r u l i n q on t h e t h i r d party review. action tind there i s no iudgrnent for this Court to W e remand f o r a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e l i a b i l i t y of t h i r d p a r t y defendant t o t h i r d p a r t y p l a h t i f f , Judgment o f t h e District Court r e f o r m i n g p u r c h a s e price by a $1,500 r e d u c t i o n and o r d e r i n g all p a r t i e s to b e a r costs and attorney's fees i s a f f i r m & . Liability o f t h i r d party

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.