I N T E SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
H
No. 12074
GLENN H. ALLMAN, A d m i n i s t r a t o r
of the Estate o f Pvan B . APErnan,
Deceased
J. M. STUART, the CPTY OF G A G W
LSO
and t h e COUNTY OF VALLEY,
D e f e n d a n t s and Cross P l a i n t i f f s .
O R D E R
--
PER CURPAM:
The o p i n i o n of t h i s C o u r t d a t e d J a n u a r y 1 0 , 1972 i s
o r d e r e d amended as f o l 1 s w s :
Another p a r a g r a p h s h a l l b e added on page 12, a t t h e
end o f t h e p r e s e n t o p i n i o n and r e a d i n g :
" P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t to have his costs on e h i s
a p p e a l , t o b e t a x e d by t h e d i s t r i c t court."
The p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g i s d e n i e d ,
DATED t h i s % s tday of F e b r u a r y , 3.972.
No. 12074
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
H OR F F
1971
G E N H. ALLMAN, A d m i n i s t r a t o r of t h e
LN
E s t a t e of IVAN B. ALLMAN, Deceased,
P l a i n t i f f and Appellant,
J. M. STUART, t h e CITY O GTASGOW,
F
and t h e COUNTY O VALLEY,
F
Defendants and C r o s s - P l a i n t i f f s .
Appeal from: District Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellant :
Leo J. K o t t a s , Sr. argued, Helena, Montana.
For Defendants :
Robert Hurly argued, Glasgow, Montana.
Submitted: December 2, 1971
Decided : JAR 1 0 g#g
Filed : 3t I 0 IR
PN 9
M r . J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court.
I n a s u i t between p l a i n t i f f who owns two l o t s and de-
f e n d a n t who owns a n o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s i t u a t e t h e r e o n , t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t of V a l l e y County e n t e r e d judgment r e q u i r i n g s a l e o f t h e
l o t s and b u i l d i n g a s a n e n t i t y , w i t h apportionment o f t h e s a l e
proceeds between t h e p a r t i e s . P l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h i s judg-
ment and d e n i a l o f h i s motion f o r a new t r i a l .
The s a l i e n t f a c t s h e r e a r e unique. The two l o t s i n
q u e s t i o n a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e C i t y o f Glasgow, Montana. An o f f i c e
b u i l d i n g had been c o n s t r u c t e d on t h e l o t s by persons o t h e r t h a n
t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e i n s t a n t case. F i n a n c i a l problems ensued c u l -
m i n a t i n g i n a mortgage f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n f i l e d i n t h e United
S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court i n Glasgow by p l a i n t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t , who
was t h e owner and h o l d e r of two $10,000 promissory n o t e s and
mortgages. S e v e r a l l i e n h o l d e r s , i n c l u d i n g d e f e n d a n t h e r e , were
named a s p a r t i e s d e f e n d a n t i n t h e f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n .
On J u n e 1 9 , 1961, t h e United S t a t e s D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d
i t s foreclosure decree requiring a separate s a l e a t public auction
of t h e l o t s on t h e one hand and a s e p a r a t e s a l e of t h e b u i l d i n g
on t h e o t h e r hand. Presumably t h i s was done t o e s t a b l i s h t h e proper
l i e n r i g h t s and p r i o r i t i e s among t h e v a r i o u s l i e n h o l d e r s , a s t o
t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y . Pursuant t o t h i s foreclosure
d e c r e e , t h e s a l e was h e l d by t h e United S t a t e s Marshal on October
1 0 , 1961, i n Glasgow.
The o f f i c e b u i l d i n g was o f f e r e d f o r s a l e f i r s t . Plain-
t i f f ' s d e c e d e n t , who was t h e mortgage h o l d e r , and d e f e n d a n t , who
h e l d a mechanic's l i e n f o r e l e c t r i c a l equipment i n s t a l l e d i n t h e
b u i l d i n g , each b i d on t h e b u i l d i n g . Defendant e v e n t u a l l y was t h e
s u c c e s s f u l b i d d e r a t a p r i c e o f $14,000.
The two l o t s were t h e n o f f e r e d f o r s a l e and purchased
by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent f o r a p r i c e o f $20,000. Defendant t e s t i -
f i e d t h a t he i n t e n d e d t o b i d on t h e l o t s , b u t d i d n o t do s o because
t h e opening b i d was t o o h i g h .
Both s a l e s were s u b s e q u e n t l y confirmed by t h e United S t a t e s
D i s t r i c t Court and s e p a r a t e c e r t i f i c a t e s of s a l e were i s s u e d t o
t h e respective purchasers. No a p p e a l has e v e r been t a k e n by anyone
i n t h e foreclosure proceedings.
Following t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e , n e g o t i a t i o n s were had be-
tween t h e r e s p e c t i v e owners of t h e l o t s on t h e one hand, and o f
t h e b u i l d i n g on t h e o t h e r . Defendant's testimony summarizes'the
situation:
"Q. And d u r i n g t h e f i r s t y e a r o r two a f t e r t h i s
M a r s h a l l ( s i c ) s a l e was made you [ d e f e n d a n t ] and
myself [ d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y ] and M r . K o t t a s [ p l a i n -
t i f f ' s a t t o r n e y ] and M r . Allman [ p l a i n t i f f ] have
n e g o t i a t e d t o g e t h e r may times t r y i n g t o work o u t a
s o l u t i o n t o t h i s problem of d i v i d e d ownership h a v e n ' t
we? (Bracketed m t e r i a 1 s u p p l i e d )
a
"A. That i s c o r r e c t . I ?
During t h i s p e r i o d t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e b u i l d i n g d i f f e r e d
m a t e r i a l l y from i t s c o n d i t i o n a t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l . The f o l l o w i n g
e x c e r p t from d e f e n d a n t ' s testimony p o r t r a y s t h i s s i t u a t i o n :
"Q. And d u r i n g t h a t f i r s t p e r i o d a l s o i s n ' t i t
t r u e t h a t your b u i l d i n g was i n n o t t o o good s h a p e
and i t w o u l d n ' t have been t o o h a r d t o move?
"A. The w a l l s were cracked and i t was o n l y a b o u t a
t h i r d r e n t e d and t h e p a i n t and e v e r y t h i n g from s e t t l e -
.
ment and s t u f f . . t h e w a l l s were c r a c k e d and i t c o u l d
have been moved w i t h o u t doing t o o much damage o u t s i d e
of maybe l o s i n g t h e masonry on t h e o u t s i d e of i t which
a t t h e time c o s t around $3,100.00 something l i k e t h a t ,
t o r e p l a c e t h e masonry.
"Q. And a c t u a l l y o v e r t h e y e a r s s i n c e you bought t h e
b u i l d i n g you've p u t i n approxima t e l y $12,000.00 worth
of improvements have you n o t ?
"A. Yes. The b u i l d i n g i s r e a l good shape and f u l l y
rented a t the present.
"Q. And t h e s e improvements i n t h e s e c a s e s were r e -
q u i r e d by your r e n t e r s i n o r d e r t o r e n t s p a c e t o them?
"A. Well i t c o u l d n ' t be r e n t e d without: doing i t , no.
"Q. And i s n ' t i t a l s o t r u e t h a t a b o u t $1,000.00 o f
t h o s e improvements have been t o g r a d e and g r a v e l t h e
land around t h e b u i l d i n g ?
"A. ..
Yes t h e w a t e r . i t s t o o d around t h e r e l i k e a
l a k e and yo!^. . . b e s i d e s n o t b e i n g a b l e t o park t h e
seepage u n d e r n e a t h was what was making i t s e t t l e and
cracked a l l t h e walls.
"Q. Is i t p r a c t i c a l t o move t h e b u i l d i n g a t t h e p r e s e n t
time?
"A. Well i t i s n ' t p r a c t i c a l . It would, i t c o u l d b e
moved b u t i t s c o s t s would b e p r e t t y p r o h i b i t i v e . It
would undo a l l t h e remodeling and i t would b e a r e a l
expensive p r o p o s i t i o n .
"Q. And t h i s has been a t t a c h e d t o t h e ground w i t h a
permanent c o n c r e t e f o u n d a t i o n , h a s i t n o t ?
A . That i s c o r r e c t .
"Q. And t h e r e a r e w a t e r and sewer and gas l i n e s
t h a t go underground t o t h e b u i l d i n g ?
A . Uh huh.
"Q. And i t has s i d e w a l k s and s t e p s t h a t a r e a t t a c h e d
t o t h e groufid?
"A. I p u t i n new s i d e w a l k s on t h e south s i d e towards
t h e Elks t h i s summer. There was running w a t e r s e t t l e d
way down and was running w a t e r under t h e f o o t i n g s o - - -
"Q. Approximately how much money do you have i n v e s t e d
i n t h e building a t t h e present time?
"A. Around $22,000.00. "
The n e g o t i a t i o n s between p l a i n t i f f and d e f e n d a n t c o n c e r n i n g
t h e b u i l d i n g problem c o n t i n u e d through a t l e a s t 1965, a c c o r d i n g t o
defendant. A s e a r l y a s 1963 d e f e n d a n t was n o t i f i e d by p l a i n t i f f ,
i n w r i t i n g , t o move t h e b u i l d i n g o f f t h e l o t s ; d e f e n d a n t was
n o t i f i e d i n w r i t i n g a g a i n i n 1964. O r a l n o t i f i c a t i o n was a l s o
made i n 1965. p l a i n t i f f ' s testimony c o n c e r n i n g t h i s n o t i c e i s
summarized i n t h e f o l l o w i n g e x c e r p t :
Q . Do you r e c a l l having a c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h M r .
S t u a r t a t h i s home, you and I , a f t e r t a l k i n g t o
M r . Hurly [ d e f e n d a n t ' s a t t o r n e y ] , and M r . Hurly
t o l d us t h a t we c o u l d go and t a l k t o M r . S t u a r t ?
Do you r e c a l l t h e y e a r t h a t was? (Bracketed m a t e r i a l
added)
"A. I t h i n k i t would have been i n 65.
'p. And d i d we c o n t a c t M r . S t u a r t a t t h a t t i m e ?
"A. Yes.
"Q. And where d i d we c o n t a c t him?
"A. A t h i s house.
"Q. Who was p r e s e n t ?
A . You and M r . S t u a r t and myself.
Q . And what.. . Did you t a l k t o him a b o u t a n y t h i n g
a t t h a t time?
"A. Yes .
Q . What was i t ?
"A. About removing t h e b u i l d i n g .
Q And what, what was t h e g i s t o f t h e c o n v e r s a -
t i o n t h a t you had i n m p r e s e n c e t h e r e w i t h M r . S t u a r t ?
y
"A. Well h e was g o i n g t o g e t around t o i t and we
t a l k e d a b o u t i f we s h o u l d n ' t be g e t t i n g some r e n t o f f
f o r t h e t i m e t h a t h e had used i t , and h e a g r e e d t h a t
we should and I t h i n k , I t h i n k he asked how much we
wanted and I t o l d him t o submit a f i g u r e and 1 ' d t a k e i t
up w i t h t h e h e i r s and ...
"Q. Did you r e c e i v e such a f i g u r e from him?
llA. No."'
S t a t e and l o c a l t a x e s were s e p a r a t e l y b i l l e d t o t h e owner
o f t h e l o t s and t o t h e owner o f t h e b u i l d i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y , f o l l o w i n g
t h e r e c o r d i n g of t h e f o r e c l o s u r e d e c r e e .
Defendant h a s p a i d n o t h i n g t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e u s e of
t h e land on which t h e b u i l d i n g i s s i t u a t e d , n o r has he made a n
a c c o u n t i n g of income from t h e b u i l d i n g .
O J a n u a r y 11, 1966, p l a i n t i f f f i l e d t h e i n s t a n t s u i t
n
a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f V a l l e y County s e e k i n g
a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o remove h i s b u i l d i n g
from p l a i n t i f f ' s two l o t s , a n a c c o u n t i n g of r e n t s and p r o f i t s
from t h e b u i l d i n g , damages, and a t t o r n e y f e e s .
Defendant answered and f i l e d a c o u n t e r c l a i m , m i s t a k e n l y
d e s i g n a t e d a c r o s s complaint . H i s answer a d m i t t e d t h e purchase
of t h e t h e l a n d by p l a i n t i f f and t h e purchase of t h e b u i l d i n g
l o c a t e d t h e r e o n by h i m s e l f ; h i s c o l l e c t i o n of a l l r e n t a l s f o r
s p a c e i n t h e b u i l d i n g ; g e n e r a l l y denied a l l e l s e i n c l u d i n g any
r i g h t i n p l a i n t i f f t o r e l i e f ; and s e t f o r t h two a f f i r m a t i v e de-
fenses: (1) The r e n t a l s c o l l e c t e d a r e f o r s p a c e i n t h e b u i l d i n g
and a r e no concern of p l a i n t i f f ; (2) The e n t i r e s i t u a t i o n was
c r e a t e d by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent i n c a u s i n g t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g
t o be s o l d s e p a r a t e l y i n h i s f o r e c l o s u r e a c t i o n .
On September 11, 1967, Judge Loucks s u s t a i n e d p l a i n t i f f ' s
motion t o d i s m i s s d e f e n d a n t ' s answer and c o u n t e r c l a i m ( e r r o n e o u s l y
designated a cross claim). Subsequently Judge Loucks d i e d and
Judge S o r t e , h i s s u c c e s s o r , assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n . Plaintiff filed
a n amended complaint naming t h e c i t y of Glasgow and V a l l e y County
a s a d d i t i o n a l p a r t i e s d e f e n d a n t , s o t h a t t a x l i a b i l i t y on t h e l o t s
c o u l d be determined. Defendant S t u a r t f i l e d an answer and c o u n t e r -
c l a i m t o t h e amended complaint s u b s t a n t i a l l y s i m i l a r t o h i s o r i g i n a l
pleading.
T r i a l was h e l d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y .
O March 11, 1971, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t ,
n
c o n c l u s i o n s o f law and judgment. I t s s u b s t a n c e was:
"The only e q u i t a b l e s o l u t i o n t o t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y
i s t o s e l l t h e l o t and b u i l d i n g t o g e t h e r and
t h e r e a f t e r a p p o r t i o n t h e proceeds among t h e
parties".
Judgment was e n t e r e d a c c o r d i n g l y .
Following t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t I s d e n i a l of p l a i n t i f f ' s
motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f law, and
judgment o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t o g r a n t p l a i n t i f f a new t r i a l ,
p l a i n t i f f a p p e a l s from t h e f i n a l judgment and d e n i a l o f h i s
motion f o r new t r i a l .
P l a i n t i f f l i s t s s i x i s s u e s f o r review upon a p p e a l . We
summarize t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e s i n t h i s f a s h i o n :
1. Is p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n
r e q u i r i n g removal o f t h e b u i l d i n g from h i s l o t s ?
2. Is d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t o r e q u i r e t h a t t h e land and
b u i l d i n g be s o l d t o g e t h e r and t h e proceeds a p p o r t i o n e d among
the parties?
3. Is p l a i n t i f f e n t i t l e d t o a n a c c o u n t i n g o r r e a s o n a b l e
r e n t a l f o r t h e u s e of h i s l a n d ?
The f i r s t i s s u e f o r review r e q u i r e s n o extended d i s c u s -
sion. P l a i n t i f f i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner o f t h e two l o t s
by v i r t u e o f h i s purchase o f t h e land a t t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e .
Defendant a c q u i r e d no i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d by v i r t u e o f h i s pur-
chase o f t h e b u i l d i n g t h e r e o n , under t h e s e p a r a t e f o r e c l o s u r e
s a l e of t h e building. Defendant t e s t i f i e d t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f
t h e f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e he knew h e was buying j u s t t h e b u i l d i n g ;
t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent bought t h e l a n d ; and t h a t w a t e r , sewer,
and e l e c t r i c a l c o n n e c t i o n s were i n p l a c e . Defendant a d m i t t e d
n e g o t i a t i o n s were had f o l l o w i n g t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e purchases a t t h e
f o r e c l o s u r e s a l e s i n a n a t t e m p t t o work o u t a s o l u t i o n t o t h e
problem of d i v i d e d ownership. The e v i d e n c e i s e q u a l l y c l e a r
t h a t d e s p i t e t h e i r f a i l u r e t o resolve t h i s question, defendant
went ahead and made e x t e n s i v e improvements t o t h e b u i l d i n g to
t h e t u n e of some $12,000, which rendered i t i m p r a c t i c a l t o remove
t h e b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s land.
There i s no e v i d e n c e p l a i n t i f f m i s l e d d e f e n d a n t i n t o
t a k i n g t h i s c o u r s e o f a c t i o n o r had a n y t h i n g t o do w i t h i t ; on
t h e c o n t r a r y , a l l t h e evidence i n d i c a t e s r e p e a t e d demands by
p l a i n t i f f t h a t d e f e n d a n t remove t h e b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s
lots. It i s a d m i t t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t h a s p a i d
n o t h i n g t o p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e use o f h i s l a n d occupied by de-
fendant's building f o r s e v e r a l years following t h e foreclosure
sales. P l a i n t i f f h a s r e p e a t e d l y demanded t h a t d e f e n d a n t remove
t h e b u i l d i n g ; d e f e n d a n t h a s n e g l e c t e d t o do s o w i t h o u t any r i g h t
whatever t o occupy p l a i n t i f f ' s land; a n d , p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d
t o a mandatory i n j u n c t i o n r e q u i r i n g d e f e n d a n t t o remove t h e
b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s land w i t h i n such r e a s o n a b l e time and
under s u c h r e a s o n a b l e procedures a s t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t may r e q u i r e .
D i r e c t i n g o u r a t t e n t i o n t o t h e second i s s u e f o r r e v i e w ,
the r i g h t s of the p a r t i e s a r e equally c l e a r . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t
cannot o r d e r t h a t t h e l o t s and b u i l d i n g be s o l d a s a n i n d i v i s i b l e
e n t i t y w i t h t h e proceeds of t h e s a l e a p p o r t i o n e d between t h e
p a r t i e s i n t h e a b s e n c e of a primary r i g h t i n d e f e n d a n t t o such
relief. Here, t h e r e i s no s u c h primary r i g h t i n d e f e n d a n t e i t h e r
under Montana's p a r t i t i o n s t a t u t e s o r by a p p l i c a t i o n of any recog-
nized equity principle.
Defendant has no r i g h t t o such r e l i e f under our p a r t i t i o n
s t a t u t e s a s t h e y r e q u i r e a n i n d i v i d e d co-ownership of t h e p r o p e r t y
t o be p a r t i t i o n e d . S e c t i o n 93-6301, R.C.M. 1947, provides i n
material part:
11
When s e v e r a l c o t e n a n t s hold and a r e i n possession
of r e a l p r o p e r t y a s j o i n t t e n a n t s o r t e n a n t s i n
common *** a n a c t i o n may be brought by one o r more
of such persons f o r a p a r t i t i o n t h e r e o f *** and
f o r a s a l e of such p r o p e r t y , o r a p a r t t h e r e o f , i f
i t appears t h a t a p a r t i t i o n cannot be made w i t h o u t
a g r e a t p r e j u d i c e t o t h e owners. 11
S e c t i o n 93-6301.1, R.C.M. 1947, r e q u i r e s t h e same co-
tenancy i n p a r t i t i o n a c t i o n s of p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y . Here, t h e r e
i s no cotenancy of a n undivided i n t e r e s t a s j o i n t t e n a n t s , t e n a n t s
is
i n common, o r otherwise; on t h e c o n t r a r y , p l a i n t i f f / t h e s o l e and
e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e r e a l e s t a t e , i . e . t h e l a n d , w h i l e defendant
i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y , i . e .
the building. Accordingly, defendant has no s t a n d i n g t o b r i n g
a p a r t i t i o n a c t i o n on t h e e n t i r e p r o p e r t y , I.@. t h e land and t h e
b u i l d i n g , a s he i s n o t a c o t e n a n t t h e r e i n . In e f f e c t , t h e fore-
c l o s u r e d e c r e e and s e p a r a t e s a l e s p a r t i t i o n e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n t o
twoseparate p a r t s , each owned e x c l u s i v e l y by t h e r e s p e c t i v e
parties t o this action.
Nor has defendant, under any recognized e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e ,
e s t a b l i s h e d any primary r i g h t i n himself t o have t h e b u i l d i n g and
land merged f o r s a l e , s o l d a s an e n t i t y , and t h e s a l e proceeds
apportioned between t h e r e s p e c t i v e owners. Both p a r t i e s purchased
t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e p r o p e r t i e s w i t h t h e i r eyes open; under no m i s -
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , mistake, o r misunders tanding; and, w i t h f u l l
knowledge of t h e problems i n h e r e n t i n d i v i d e d ownership.
Defendant u n i l a t e r a l l y proceeded t o expend a s u b s t a n t i a l
sum of money i n improvements on h i s b u i l d i n g , rendering i t i m -
p r a c t i c a l t o remove i t from p l a i n t i f f ' s land. A l l t h e s e improve-
ments were made without any agreement o r payment t o p l a i n t i f f of
a r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l f o r t h e use of h i s l a n d , and a t l e a s t some of
t h e improvements were made i n t h e f a c e of repeated demands by
p l a i n t i f f t h a t defendant remove h i s b u i l d i n g from p l a i n t i f f ' s
land. Defendant i s nothing more than a naked t r e s p a s s e r on
p l a i n t i f f ' s land who proceeded a t h i s p e r i l w i t h s u b s t a n t i a l
improvements t o h i s b u i l d i n g i n t h e hope t h a t some agreement
could be reached whereby he could purchase t h e l a n d , p l a i n t i f f
would purchase h i s b u i l d i n g , o r a r e n t a l agreement o r some o t h e r
arrangement could be consummated s o t h a t t h e b u i l d i n g would
n o t have t o be removed from Lhe land. No agreement has been
reached and now defendant seeks t o compel p l a i n t i f f t o s e l l h i s
land a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n .
Defendant has no primary r i g h t t o compel p l a i n t i f f t o
do t h i s . The land belongs t o p l a i n t i f f who has t h e r i g h t t o
s e l l i t on such terms and c o n d i t i o n s a s he s e e s f i t ; o r p l a i n -
t i f f can r e f u s e t o s e l l i t a t a l l . These r i g h t s a r e unquesttoned
i n c i d e n t s of l e g a l ownership of p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y . lai in tiff's
motives o r reasons f o r s a l e o r r e f u s a l t o s e l l , o r h i s terms and
c o n d i t i o n s of s a l e , a r e immaterial.
Unquestionably defendant now f i n d s himself i n a d i f f i c u l t
p o s i t i o n w i t h a l i k e l i h o o d of s u s t a i n i n g a s u b s t a n t i a l l o s s , b u t
i t i s a s i t u a t i o n of h i s own making f o r which p l a i n t i f f i s i n no
m y c h a r g e a b l e nor r e s p o n s i b l e . Although defendant a r g u e s t h a t
t h i s s i t u a t i o n was c r e a t e d by p l a i n t i f f ' s decedent i n b r i n g i n g
about t h e divided ownership a s a r e s u l t of h i s f o r e c l o s u r e s u i t ,
t h e r e i s n e i t h e r evidence t h a t t h e s e p a r a t e s a l e s under t h e f o r e -
c l o s u r e d e c r e e were h i s doing, nor t h a t defendant misunderstood
o r was misled i n any way about what he was purchasing o r of h i s
r i g h t s thereunder.
Under such circumstances , what e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e
compels t h e owner o f land t o s e l l i t a t p u b l i c a u c t i o n a g a i n s t
h i s wishes t o prevent a l o s s t o a c o n t i n u i n g t r e s p a s s e r w i t h
notice? The q u e s t i o n provides i t s own answer and demonstrates
t h e f a l l a c y of d e f e n d a n t ' s p o s i t i o n on t h i s i s s u e .
Proceeding t o t h e f i n a l i s s u e , we hold t h a t a l t h o u g h
p l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n accounting of d e f e n d a n t ' s r e n t a l s
on h i s o f f i c e b u i l d i n g , p l a i n t i f f i s n e v e r t h e l e s s e n t i t l e d t o a
r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l f o r t h e use of h i s land occupied by d e f e n d a n t ' s
building. P l a i n t i f f i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n accounting simply
because defendant i s t h e s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner and l a n d l o r d of
t h e b u i l d i n g and p l a i n t i f f has no i n t e r e s t i n t h e b u i l d i n g o r
r e n t a l s d e r i v e d from i t s t e n a n t s . O t h e o t h e r hand, p l a i n t i f f
n
a s s o l e and e x c l u s i v e owner of t h e land on which t h e b u i l d i n g i s
s i t u a t e i s e n t i t l e d t o t h e reasonable r e n t a l v a l u e of h i s land
f o r t h e period of time i t was and i s occupied by d e f e n d a n t ' s
building.
The record of t h e t r i a l i s devoid of any s u b s t a n t i a l
c r e d i b l e evidence concerning t h e reasonable r e n t a l v a l u e of
p l a i n t i f f ' s land. The only evidence o f f e r e d on t h i s p o i n t i s
t h e b a l d a s s e r t i o n by p l a i n t i f f t h a t "we f i g u r e d i t could e a s i l y
b r i n g i n $75.00 t o $80.00 a month'' j u s t f o r parking. Plaintiff
gave no b a s i s f o r t h i s opinion and admitted t h a t he d i d n o t look
i n t o t h e a c t u a l expense of c r e a t i n g a parking l o t on h i s land.
P l a i n t i f f a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h e r e were two vacant l o t s immediately
west o f h i s land which were used a s parking space f o r p a t r o n s
of t h e Elks Club and d e f e n d a n t ' s b u i l d i n g and t h a t he d i d n o t
know of anyone who was paying any s o r t of r e n t f o r t h i s parking.
Accordingly, t h i s cause i s remanded t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o v a c a t e t h e f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclusions of
law, and judgment h e r e t o f o r e e n t e r e d ; t o hold a f u r t h e r h e a r i n g
t o determine t h e r e a s o n a b l e r e n t a l v a l u e t o be paid p l a i n t i f f
f o r t h e use of h i s land by defendant; and, f o r t h e e n t r y of
a p p r o p r i a t e f i n d i n g s o t t a c t , conclusions of law, and f i n a l
judgment i n conformity w i t h t h i s opinion.
Associate J u s t i c e
ef J u s t i c e