No. 12841
I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA
H OR F F
1975
JUMPING RAINBOW RANCH, a
Montana Corporation,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
-vs -
RICHARD J. CONKLIN e t a l . ,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal f r o m : D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For Appellants :
Berg, Angel, Andriolo & Morgan, Bozeman, Montana
Charles F. Angel argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondent:
Landoe & Gary, Bozeman, Montana
Joseph B. Gary argued, Bozeman, Montana
Huppert and Swindlehurst, Livingston, Montana
James Murad, San Francisco, C a l i f o r n i a
Submitted : June 13, 1975
Decided :
A&-.. 3& ;;
a *
Filed:
Mr. 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.
T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d iz t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t , P a r k County, p u r s u a n t t o f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s
of law f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f Jumping Rainbow Ranch i s t h e owner
of c e r t a i n l a n d s ; t h a t t h e q u i t c l a i m deed f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t s
R i c h a r d J . Conklin and w i f e and John Orser and w i f e c o n s t i t u t e d
a c l o u d on p l a i n t i f f ' s t i t l e ; and, t h a t a c t i o n s i n o b t a i n i n g
and r e c o r d i n g t h e q u i t c l a i m deed w e r e r e c k l e s s , e r r o n e o u s , f r a u d -
u l e n t and w r o n g f u l , c a u s i n g p l a i n t i f f t o s u f f e r damages i n t h e
amount of $5,000.
The l i t i g a t i o n i n v o l v e d a d i s p u t e a s t o t h e o w n e r s h i p
of c e r t a i n l a n d s i n S e c t i o n 35, Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t ,
M.P.M., P a r k County, Montana. P l a i n t i f f i s a Montana c o r p o r a t i o n
whose s o l e owners a r e P a u l McAdam and h i s w i f e . I n 1966, P a u l
McAdam purchased c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y from E l a r d and Mildred
Basset. McAdam and h i s w i f e t r a n s f e r r e d t h i s p r o p e r t y t o p l a i n -
t i f f c o r p o r a t i o n on A p r i l 21, 1972. A p l a t from t h e r e c o r d s o f
t h e Bureau o f Land Management shows t h a t L o t s 5 and 6 i n S e c t i o n
35 l i e t o t a l l y w i t h i n t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r o f t h a t s e c t i o n and
c o n t a i n 25.12 a c r e s and 37.84 a c r e s r e s p e c t i v e l y .
The q u i t c l a i m deed f i l e d by d e f e n d a n t s i s d a t e d A p r i l 5 ,
1971, and was f i l e d on May 3 , 1971. That d e e d , e x c e p t f o r one
o f two i s l a n d s d e s c r i b e d t h e r e i n , c o v e r s some of t h e p r o p e r t y i n
t h e n o r t h e a s t q u a r t e r of S e c t i o n 35. This d i s p u t e arose over
t h e 17.9 a c r e s and t h e two i s l a n d s .
The q u i t c l a i m deed d a t e d A p r i l 5 , 1971, came from one
D. G. Anderson Duncan and covered p o r t i o n s of t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s
p r o p e r t i e s , and it i s by t h i s deed t h a t d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m t i t l e .
From t h e t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l and t h e d e p o s i t i o n s t a k e n
and i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , t h e h i s t o r y of t h e deed i s r e v e a l e d .
Counsel f o r p l a i n t i f f d e s c r i b e s it i n h i s b r i e f :
"The s o u r c e of C o n k l i n ' s t i t l e t o L o t s 5 and 6
of S e c t i o n 35, Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t ,
l i e s deep i n t h e a n n a l s of w e s t e r n f o l k l o r e . I t
seems t h a t a c c o r d i n g t o C o n k l i n , an a t t o r n e y of
s i x t e e n ( 1 6 ) y e a r s ' e x p e r i e n c e , a n Anderson
p a s s e d t h r o u g h t h e Yellowstone V a l l e y d u r i n g
t h e 1 8 0 0 ' s . I t was from t h i s Anderson t h a t
Conklin f e e l s he derived merchantable t i t l e .
A f t e r d i s c o v e r i n g t h a t h i s s e c r e t a r y ' s maiden
name was Anderson, Conklin a s k e d M r s . Duncan t o
q u i t c l a i m any i n t e r e s t s h e might of had i n L o t s
5 and 6 i n t h e N o r t h e a s t Q u a r t e r of S e c t i o n 35,
Township 3 S o u t h , Range 9 E a s t . The f u l l con-
s i d e r a t i o n f o r s i g n i n g h e r name t o t h e deed was
Ten D o l l a r s ($10.00) and a box o f R u s s e l l S t o v e r
chocolates."
Conklin a d m i t t e d t h a t he n e v e r had L o t s 5 and 6 s u r v e y e d ; h e
n e v e r purchased t i t l e i n s u r a n c e nor d i d h e e v e r s t u d y t h e a b s t r a c t
o f t i t l e t o d e t e r m i n e i f any Andersons showed i n t h e c h a i n of
title. H e t e s t i f i e d he had checked t h e r e c o r d s of t h e Bureau o f
Land Management i n B i l l i n g s , Montana and t h e o r i g i n a l s u r v e y showed
t h a t l o t s 5 and 6 had a boundary p e r i m e t e r on t h e w e s t s i d e t h e r e o f
and a s t r a i g h t n o r t h - s o u t h s u r v e y l i n e and t h a t a l l p r o p e r t y l y i n g
w e s t of t h e s t r a i g h t n o r t h - s o u t h s u r v e y l i n e had n e v e r been p a t e n t e d .
t r i a l p l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t 5 was a the official
s u r v e y of t h e l a n d s q u e s t i o n on f i l e a t t h e Bureau of Land
Management o f f i c e , d a t e d J u n e 25, 1888, and showed t h a t S e c t i o n
25 and i n p a r t i c u l a r L o t s 5 and 6 t h e r e o f , had a w e s t e r n boundary
a l o n g t h e r i g h t bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r . Affixed t o e x h i b i t
5 , and made a p a r t t h e r e o f , i s a p h o t o g r a p h i c blow-up of t h e prop-
e r t y i n q u e s t i o n , ~ o t 5 and 6 , w i t h a n o v e r l a y p r e p a r e d t o s c a l e .
s
The e x h i b i t i n d i c a t e s t h e w e s t b o u n d a r i e s of L o t s 5 and 6 were
n o t s t r a i g h t l i n e s , b u t t h e r i g h t bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r , o r
g e o g r a p h i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , t h e east bank of t h e Yellowstone R i v e r .
P l a i n t i f f ' s e x h i b i t 5 , a 1951 U n i t e d S t a t e s G e o l o g i c a l
Survey, i n d i c a t e s t h e r e h a s been a n a c c r e t i o n t o l a n d s i n ~ o t 5
s
and 6 s i n c e t h e s u r v e y of 1874, a s shown on t h e J u n e 25, 1888 p l a t .
The t r i a l c o u r t found t h a t a l l t h e a c c r e t e d l a n d s have been ex-
c l u s i v e l y and open and n o t o r i o u s l y owned by p l a i n t i f f and i t s
predecessors in interest for more than five years preceding
the commencement of this action; that plaintiff purchased the
land in 1966 and immediately improved it by diking and other
extensive improvements commencing in 1967, in the way of fish
ponds for cultivating fish.
The complaint here was filed on March 29, 1972. On
April 20, 1972, plaintiff obtained a quitclaim deed, from Allyn
and Agnes O'Hair,
W. O1~air,/his wife, covering:
"All land lying East of the middle of the Yellow-
storie River in Section thirty-five (35), Townshi-
three (3) South, Range Nine (9) East, M..P.M., a-s
Two (3)
. Section th
more particularly any portl-
d
t ?
,
-
Lots One (1) ar;d
--Live(35) tha:. :i. .:
East . - . . ---le the S'ellowstone River i l r
of
said ,'.lrty-five (35) ".
. -s deed was filed July 21, 1972. An amended complaint was
filed on July 20, 1972.
Conklin deeded his interest to a Mr. and Mrs. John Orser.
Orser testified by deposition that he paid Conklin between $1,000
and $5,000 for legal services, but refused to tie his testimony
to the purchase of the land. Orser conveyed to a Cal Rossi of
San Francisco. Rossi, according to Orser, was to pay him $1,000
per acre, when he got clear title, but had paid nothing down.
Conklin, at the time of submission of his brief, alleged
he no longer claimed interest in the land and the court's find-
ings of a slander of title was erroneous because there was no
substantial evidence in the record to show his conduct was malicious.
Conklin raises eight issues on appeal. We find those
issues may be combined into 2 issues:
(1) Is there sufficient evidence for the court to find
that all the lands east of the Yellowstone River, particularly
Lots 5 and 6, Section 35, Township 3 South, Range 9 East, M.P.M.
belonging to Jumping Rainbow Ranch, Inc.?
(2) Would the actions of Conklin in filing the deed result
i n s u b s t a n t i a l damage t o p l a i n t i f f , Jumping ~ a i n b o wRanch, I n c . ?
The a c t i o n of C o n k l i n , a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y of t h i s
s t a t e f o r some s i x t e e n y e a r s , was an a t t e m p t t o d e p r i v e p l a i n t i f f
of c e r t a i n r e a l e s t a t e . Conklin i n s i s t s now t h a t he d o e s n o t
now own t h e l a n d n o r c l a i m any i n t e r e s t i n it. H i s argument t h a t
h e r a i s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f ownership o n l y a s t o i t s e f f e c t on t h e
monetary judgment a g a i n s t him, i s d i f f i c u l t t o u n d e r s t a n d .
P r i o r t o judgment, and a t t h e t a k i n g of h i s d e p o s i t i o n ,
he s t a t e d :
"A. No, s i r , I am c l a i m i n g a f e e i n t e r e s t i n t h i s
land. T i t l e of record---."
T h e r e a f t e r , he deeded i t t o Orser who deeded i t t o R o s s i , who w a s
t o g e t $17,000 i f he and Conklin c o u l d c l e a r t h e t i t l e .
I n Diamond I n v e s t m e n t Co. v . Geagan, 154 Mont. 122, 4 6 0
P.2d 760, t h i s C o u r t h e l d t h a t a d e f e n d a n t i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n
must r e l y on s t r e n g t h o f h i s own t i t l e and n o t weakness of p l a i n -
t i f f ' s title. Roe v . Newman, 162 Mont. 135, 509 P.2d 8 4 4 ; Brown
v . C a r t w r i g h t , 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 6 8 4 .
Conklin's attempt t o e s t a b l i s h t i t l e through a q u i t c l a i m
deed by h i s s e c r e t a r y whose maiden name was Anderson i s , o f i t s e l f ,
t h e weakest i n t e r e s t o f t i t l e t o q u a l i f y t o c l a i m any i n t e r e s t i n
the land. P e r h a p s , b e c a u s e of l a c k of s t r e n g t h of h i s own t i t l e ,
d e f e n d a n t g o e s on i n g r e a t l e n g t h s t o p r o v e t h e l a n d d o e s n o t
belong t o p l a i n t i f f . Such d i v e r s i o n a r y arguments l e n d no s t r e n g t h
t o h i s c l a i m of t i t l e .
Damages t o p l a i n t i f f were b r o u g h t a b o u t by C o n k l i n ' s c l a i m
of i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d , f o r i t w a s h i s p r i o r a c t i o n s t h a t n e c e s s i -
t a t e d t h e f i l i n g of t h i s a c t i o n t o c l e a r t i t l e a t a t i m e he a l l e g e d
an i n t e r e s t . T h e r e f o r e , t h e s o u r c e o f h i s c l a i m e d i n t e r e s t and
h i s a c t s a r e r e l e v a n t t o an a d j u d i c a t i o n of t h e m a t t e r .
C o n k l i n , a s an a t t o r n e y , knew o r s h o u l d have known, t h e
standard procedure f o r proving t i t l e t o land. This record i s barren
of such proof.
Plaintiff admitted the present acreage of Lots 5 and 6
is greater than the acreage existing at the time of the original
survey, but showed that the increase was caused by accretion by
the Yellowstone River, not by an error of survey. This Court
in Smith v. Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 74 P.2d 450, a case arising
along the Yellowstone River in Custer County, found that accreted
lands belong to the riparian owner. Helland v. Custer County,
127 Mont. 23, 256 P.2d 1085. In Smith some 184 acres had accreted
during a period of 60 years. Here, the evidence shows some 17
acres seem to have accreted in 80 years, and we have no difficulty
agreeing with the trial court's finding in this matter.
On the issue of damages, the record shows through the testi-
mony of Paul McAdam that the plaintiff suffered considerable dam-
age as a result of Conklin's filing his quitclaim deed. Substan-
tial improvements had been made on the land in question. A drag-
line had dug out a swamp to make fishponds for raising trout.
Dilces had been placed along the shoreline, approximately 20 feet
back from the river. Further expansion of ponds on Lots 5 and 6
had to be curtailed. McAdam testified he suffered in lost profits,
at least $4,000.
The trial court found plaintiff damaged in the amount of
$4,000. The additional $1,000 was assessed by the trial court
because of Conklin's and Orser's malicious conduct resulting in
the slander of title.
This Court in Continental Supply Co. v. Price, 126 Mont.
363, 374, 376, 251 P.2d 553, recognized that in view of the plead-
ings and record, malice as an essential element of the cross-
complaint for slander of title could be presumed. In Continental
the Court cited Keiser v. Kile, 166 Okl. 41, 26 P.2d 194, 195,
with approval: "The principal element in a suit for slander of
title is malice." and then noted:
"From the pleadings it appears affirmatively
that the plaintiff in disregard of defendant's
rights knowingly, recklessly, erroneously, fraud-
ulently and wrongfully filed a blanket lien upon
many legal subdivisions of real property, in
which defendant held leasehold interests, all of
which would demonstrate a willingness on the part
of the plaintiff to cloud and disparage the title
of defendant and the will to vex, annoy and harass
and injure the defendant.
"Where, as here, no justifiable motive is shown in
the record, malice is presumed. [Citing cases and
authority] "
See: Vol. 20, Montana Law Review, 1 1 18: Paulson v. Kustom
Enterprises, Inc., 157 Mont. 188, 483 P.2d 708.
Here, the record clearly shows the action of Conlclin
in filing his quitclaim deed was such as to warrant the necessary
showing of malice to entitle plaintiff to punitive damages.
The findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment of
the trial court are affirmed.
We concur:
'
-.
,f
// " 4. -
i
i
Q 4- r %.
Chie Justice
)ldLL-.d-a-.~
Justices \I