Blakely v. Kelstrup

No. 85-172 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 YOLANDA BLAKELY, P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, REIDER E . KELSTRUP and DELORES J. KELSTRUI? , Defendants and Appellants. APPEAL FROM: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y of G a l l a t i n , T h e H o n o r a b l e Joseph B. G a r y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: M o r r o w , S e d i v y & B e n n e t t ; L y m a n H. B e n n e t t , B o z e m a n , Montana For Respondent: Wayne J e n n i n g s , B o z e m a n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d on b r i e f s : A u g . 15, 1 9 8 5 Decided: O c t o b e r 22, 1385 Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. This i s an appeal from a n o r d e r and judgment of the District Court, Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, Montana. The c a s e w a s b i f u r c a t e d , t h e H o n o r a b l e W. W. Lessley presiding at t h e bench trail and t h e Honorable Joseph B. Gary presiding at the hearing on damages. Following the bench trial the court found the plaintiff e n t i t l e d t o p o s s e s s i o n o f two m o b i l e homes a n d t h r e e a c r e s o f l a n d , m o r e o r l e s s , on w h i c h t h e homes w e r e s i t u a t e d . A t the subsequent hearing on damages the court awarded plaintiff t r e b l e damages o f $4,500 p u r s u a n t t o 5 70-27-207, MCA, for r e a s o n a b l e r e n t o f t h e t r a i l e r homes and l a n d . The d e f e n d a n t appeals. We affirm. P l a i n t i f f , Yolanda B l a k e l y , b o u g h t , d e v e l o p e d , i m p r o v ~ d and then attempted t o sell land. The l a n d i n q u e s t i o n was l e a s e d t o d e f e n d a n t s , R e i d e r and D o l o r e s Kel s t r u p , rent-free f o r f i v e years. During t h e l e a s e p e r i o d Rlakely a s s i g n e d h e r i n t e r e s t i n the leased property t o t h e Triple B Trust. The assignment was recorded. The Trust later reassigned the interest to her through a quitclaim deed, which was not recorded. A t t h e end o f t h e lease period Kelstrups refused t o v a c a t e t h e p r e m i s e s and B l a k e l y f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t them u nd e r Montana's f o r c e a b l e e n t r y and d e t a i n e r s t a t u t e s , T i t l e 70, ch. 2 7 , MCA. Kelstrups defended, a l l e g i n g Blakely was n o t t h e p r o p e r p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n b e c a u s e s h e w a s not the real party in interest, and the action should be dismissed. Resolution of the case turns on the relationship between t h e r e c o r d i n g s t a t u t e s and which party is the real party in interest. Kelstrups claim Blakely i s not t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t because she did not record t h e reassignment t o h e r o f t h e i n t e r e s t i n t h e l e a s e d p r o p e r t y and t h e r e f o r e does not have record title to the property. Kelstrups mistake record title with legal title. The two are not synonymous. A p r o p e r t y owner c a n h a v e v a l i d legal t i t l e t o property without recordation. The r u l e i s an u n r e c o r d e d deed affecting title t o l a n d i s v a l i d between t h e p a r t i e s . "An unrecorded instrument is valid a s between the parties and those vrho have notice thereof." Section 70-21-102, MCA. Recordation is a device to establish priority, but has nothing t o do w i t h conveying t i t l e . Lawler v. Gleason (Cal. 1 9 5 5 ) , 279 P.2d 70, 7 3 . The p u r p o s e o f r e c o r d i n g i n s t r u m e n t s i s t o g i v e n o t i c e t o s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r s and e n c u m b r a n c e r s . U n l e s s it i s t h e i n t e n t i o n o f t h e p a r t i e s t h a t r e c o r d i n g t h e d e e d p a s s e s t i t l e it d o e s n o t d o s o , The r e c o r d d o e s n o t d i s c l o s e such i n t e n t i o n . Documents a r e r e c o r d e d t o a l e r t t h o s e p e r s o n s who m i g h t change t h e i r p o s i t i o n i n r e l i a n c e on t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t i t l e , specifically subsequent purchasers and mortgagees. The Kelstrups a r e holdover t e n a n t s . Their only i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y was a r e n t - f r e e f i v e year lease. They d o n o t f a l l within the scope and protection afforded by the recording statutes. Their legal position is not affected whether Blakely o r t h e T r i p l e B T r u s t holds t i t l e t o t h e property. I n any e v e n t , B l a k e l y h o l d s t i t l e b e c a u s e , t h o u g h u n r e c o r d e d , s h e h o l d s a v a l i d deed from T r i p l e B T r u s t . I f , however, t h e t r u s t had conveyed a deed t o y e t a n o t h e r p a r t y who r e c o r d e d it p r i o r t o B l a k e l y ' s r e c o r d i n g , t h a t p a r t y ' s i n t e r e s t would be superior t o Blakely's and B l a k e l y would n o t b e t h e r e a l party in i n t e r e s t . Kelstrups' argument that Blakely is not the proper p a r t y t o b r i n g t h e a c t i o n due t o t h e e a r l i e r a s s i g n m e n t j.s without merit. The law i n Montana f o r o v e r e i g h t y y e a r s h a s been a p l a i n t i f f v e s t e d w i t h l e g a l t i t l e i s t h e r e a l p a r t y i n interest. G e n z b e r g e r v . Adams ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 62 Mont. 430, 436, 205 P. 658, 660. See a l s o Rae v. Cameron ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 112 Mont. 159, 1 7 5 , 1 1 4 ,P.2d 1060, 1067. Rule 1 7 ( a ) , M.R.Civ.P. provides, "every action s h a l l be prosecuted i n t h e name o f t h e r e a l party i n interest. .. " Requiring t h e r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t t o b r i n g an a c t i o n protects a defendant from multiple suits. Allowing this judgment t o s t a n d w i l l n o t s u b j e c t t h e K e l s t r u p s t o m u l t i p l e suits. T r i p l e B T r u s t d i v e s t e d i t s e l f o f any i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y and c a n n o t now b e h e a r d t o c l a i m i t was t h e i n j u r e d party. To a l l o w it t o d o s o would n e g a t e t h e argument t h a t Blakely is the real party in interest. Dismissing this a c t i o n would b e t a n t a m o u n t t o a r g u i n g t h e r e i s no r e a l p a r t y i n i n t e r e s t , c l e a r l y an absurdity. The K e l s t r u p s a r e s u b j e c t t o t h e same l i a b i l i t y r e g a r d l e s s o f who owns t h e p r o p e r t y . They a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o t h e same p r o t e c t i o n a s a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r and c e r t a i n l y a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o more p r o t e c t i o n . The p r o p e r p a r t y b r o u g h t t h e a c t i o n . The decision of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is affirmed. W e concur: