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: