No. 12226
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A
F OTN
1972
E. C. STROMBERG,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
SEATON RANCH CONPAIfY and DOROTHY M. SFATON,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
...............................................
M T BROWN,
AT
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
SEATON RANCIT COMPANY, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,
Defendant and A p p e l l a n t .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P a u l G. Hatf i e l d , .Tudge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
F o r P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t :
Swanberg, Koby & Swanberg, G r e a t F a l l - s , Montana.
R a n d a l l Swanberg a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana,
F o r Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s :
Graybi-11, G r a y b i l l , O s t r e m & Warner, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana.
Donald Ostrem a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana.
J. Vaughan Barron a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana.
F o r P l a i n t i f f and Respondent :
H a r r i s , Jackson & U t i c k , Helena, Montana.
L. V. H a r r i s a r g u e d , Helena, Montana.
Submitted: June 20, 1972
(1 19 !I..'-
$ Decided :
Filed : T8T 19 107$
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court,
This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment e n t e r e d by t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t of t h e e i g h t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t , county of Cascade, Hon.
Paul G. H a t f i e l d presiding, without a j u r y . Judgment was e n t e r e d
upon f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law which found t h e
p l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, was t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause o f t h e
s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e G l a c i e r Colony of H u t t e r i t e s
f o r $810,000 and e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n t h e
amount of $40,500, t o g e t h e r w i t h a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e amount of
$3,783.56, p l u s c o s t s .
P l a i n t i f f E. C. Stromberg, a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , f i l e d a n
a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton
t o r e c o v e r a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton
ranch. L a t e r p l a i n t i f f Matt Brown, a r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r , f i l e d
an a c t i o n a g a i n s t defendant Seaton Ranch Company, a c o r p o r a t i o n ,
f o r recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e commission f o r t h e s a l e of t h e same
ranch.
Defendants moved t o have t h e two c a s e s c o n s o l i d a t e d under
Rule 4 2 ( a ) , M.R.Civ. P. Both p l a i n t i f f s , r e s i s t e d b u t t h e c a s e s
were c o n s o l i d a t e d by t h e c o u r t .
Seaton Ranch Company owned a l a r g e ranch n e a r F o r t Shaw i n
Cascade County. Ed Seaton, husband of defendant Dorothy Seaton,
managed t h e ranch u n t i l h i s d e a t h i n 1965. T h e r e a f t e r Dorothy
Seaton took over t h e management and became owner of a l l t h e s t o c k
i n the corporation,
A f t e r h e r husband's d e a t h , Dorothy Seaton s o l d t h e machinery
and p a r t of t h e l i v e s t o c k and e n t e r e d i n t o approximately twenty
nonexclusive l i s t i n g s w i t h v a r i o u s r e a l e s t a t e b r o k e r s f o r t h e
s a l e of t h e ranch, i n c l u d i n g a l i s t i n g w i t h E.C. Stromberg d a t e d
May 17, 1966, and a l i s t i n g t o Matt Brown, d a t e d December 9,1966.
Stromberg's l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t contained no e x p i r a t i o n d a t e and
was t o remain open u n t i l e i t h e r t h e c o n t r a c t was terminated o r
t h e ranch was s o l d . The Brown l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t had an e x p i r a -
t i o n d a t e of June 15, 1967, although a b l a n k space was l e f t i n
t h e l a s t paragraph of t h e Brown l i s t i n g r e l a t i n g t o t h e number
of days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e d u r i n g which Brown could r e -
cover a commission i n t h e event of a s a l e .
Both Stromberg and Brown s o l i c i t e d t h e G l a c i e r Colony.
Soon a f t e r o b t a i n i n g h i s l i s t i n g on May 1 7 , 1966, Stromberg con-
t a c t e d a group of p r o s p e c t i v e customers and imparted t o them a l l
of t h e p e r t i n e n t i n f o r m a t i o n r e g a r d i n g t h e Seaton ranch. Among
t h e s e p r o s p e c t i v e customers was M r . John Entz of t h e G l a c i e r
Colony. M r . Entz, s e c r e t a r y - t r e a s u r e r of t h e G l a c i e r Colony,
had advised Stromberg p r i o r t o May 1966, t h a t t h e G l a c i e r Colony
d e s i r e d land i n t h e Great F a l l s a r e a . After receiving the r e a l
e s t a t e l i s t i n g from M r s . Seaton, Stromberg made two p e r s o n a l
v i s i t s t o t h e G l a c i e r Colony, t h e f i r s t i n May o r June 1966, and
t h e second sometime i n t h e s p r i n g of 1967. Both times he gave
informa'tion about t h e Seaton ranch t o M r . Entz and attempted t o
i n t e r e s t him i n t h e u l t i m a t e purchase of t h e ranch. Stromberg
a l s o made s e v e r a l telephone c a l l s t o Entz r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e
s a l e of t h e p r o p e r t y and wrote two l e t t e r s t o Entz d a t e d January
5 , 1967 and June 2 7 , 1967, b o t h of which d i s c u s s e d t h e Seaton
ranch.
M r . Entz v i s i t e d Stromberg's o f f i c e on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s ,
t h e l a s t v i s i t b e i n g on J u l y 12, 1967. I n J u l y 1967, some members
o f t h e G l a c i e r Colony went t o ~ t r o m b e r g ' s o f f i c e i n Great F a l l s ,
expressed a d e s i r e t o b e shown t h e Seaton r a n c h , and asked f o r
an appointment f o r t h a t purpose. Stromberg never made t h e
appointment nor showed them t h e ranch. The l a s t c o n t a c t by
Stromberg w i t h e i t h e r Mrs. Seaton o r t h e o f f i c e r s of t h e G l a c i e r
Colony was on J u l y 1 2 , 1967, when he wrote a l e t t e r t o M r . Entz
apologizing f o r h i s f a i l u r e t o make an appointment. ~tromberg's
testimony a t t r i a l was:
"Like I t o l d you b e f o r e , you reach a s a t u r a t i o n
p o i n t on c o n t a c t s and work with people. There i s
some point t h e r e where they i n d i c a t e d they were
going t o come back, I was c e r t a i n l y n o t going t o
go t h e r e t h e next day and lead them by t h e hand
and say ' l e t ' s go'. I t
Matt Brown s p e c i a l i z e d i n ranch p r o p e r t i e s and during t h e
period from 1965 t o December 1966, he obtained t h r e e nonexclusive
l i s t i n g s t o s e l l t h e Seaton ranch, one from Ed Seaton and two
from Dorothy Seaton. He had already spent considerable time
on t h i s property when he received t h e l i s t i n g i n question h e r e .
P r i o r t o t h e June 15, 1967, e x p i r a t i o n of h i s l i s t i n g , Brown on
o r about May 24, 1967, i n response t o a c a l l from t h e Glacier
C,olony drove t o t h e colony and spent two t o two and one-half
hours g i v i n g the l e a d e r s of t h e colony information on one o t h e r
ranch and complete d e t a i l s on the Seaton ranch. They d i d n o t
i n d i c a t e they had ever seen the Seaton ranch but showed an
interest i n it. The only d e t e r r e n t t o t h e i r i n t e r e s t was an
outstanding l e a s e of t h e farm land t o one Charles Jacobsen,
but they advised Matt Brown t h a t he could overcome that obstacle.
Upon leaving t h e colony, Brown advised them t o c o n t a c t him when
they were ready t o look a t t h e ranch.
Within a day o r two a f t e r e n l i s t i n g t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier
Colony, on May 27, 1967, Brown went t o s e e Dorothy Seaton a t t h e
ranch and advised h e r t h e Glacier Colony was i n t e r e s t e d i n buying
t h e ranch and a s c e r t a i n e d t h a t she would n o t o b j e c t t o s e l l i n g t o
Hutterites. Brown then went t o t h e home of Charles Jacobsen,
t h e l e s s e e of t h e Seaton ranch farm land i n F a i r f i e l d , Montana,
and attempted t o f i n d o u t what i t would take t o buy out t h e
lessee's interest. He was unsuccessful i n obtaining a f i g u r e ,
Subsequently, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony went t o
~ a c o b s e n ' shome a t F a i r f i e l d , t h e i r purpose being t o d e a l d i r e c t l y
with him i n attempting t o buy h i s leasehold i n t e r e s t . They
o f f e r e d him $60,000, b u t he demanded $80,000. A t t h a t time they
advised Jacobsen they were buying t h e Seaton ranch.
A few days a f t e r h i s v i s i t s t o Mrs. Seaton and t o Charles
Jacobsen, Brown had another telephone c a l l from t h e l e a d e r s of
t h e Glacier Colony i n d i c a t i n g they were i n Great F a l l s and
wanted t o go out t o look a t the ranch. This was on June 2 1 ,
1967, f i v e days a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e i n ~ r o w n ' s l i s t i n g .
Brown met t h e colony l e a d e r s and drove them i n h i s c a r t o
t h e Seaton ranch. He spent the e n t i r e afternoon showing t h e
ranch, a r r i v i n g a t 2 p.m. and r e t u r n i n g t o h i s home between
7:30 t o 8:00 p.m. He showed t h e l e a d e r s of t h e colony a l a r g e
p a r t of t h e ranch and they e x h i b i t e d an i n t e r e s t i n seeing t h e
e n t i r e ranch property.
The&owing of t h e ranch on June 2 1 was c u t s h o r t when ~ r o w n ' s
automobile was damaged when i t s l i p p e d i n t o a r u t , b u t he was
a b l e t o d r i v e t h e l e a d e r s back t o Great F a l l s . To complete t h e
showing, arrangements were made f o r Brown t o take t h e H u t t e r i t e s
t o b r e a k f a s t the next morning and then take them back t o the
ranch and complete t h e showing. However, e a r l y t h e next morning,
one of t h e H u t t e r i t e s c a l l e d Brown a t h i s home and s t a t e d t h a t
they had received a c a l l and would have t o r e t u r n t o t h e colony
and so would not be a b l e t o r e t u r n t o t h e Seaton ranch.
The next day, June 22, 1967, Brown mailed a l e t t e r t o John
Entz expressing disappointment t h a t he had been unable t o show
them t h e e n t i r e ranch, o f f e r i n g f u r t h e r information and urging
them t o make a cash o f f e r .
A day o r two l a t e r Brown c a l l e d M r s . Seaton and asked t o meet
h e r e i t h e r a t t h e ranch o r a t h i s o f f i c e . She requested t h a t
he meet h e r a t Weissman's s t o r e i n Great F a l l s , a s she did n o t
want t o meet him a t t h e ranch. A t t h i s meeting Brown reported
t o h e r h i s a c t i v i t y i n showing t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony
l e a d e r s and t h e i r f a i l u r e t o meet him f o r t h e b r e a k f a s t and
f u r t h e r showing of t h e ranch property.
A week o r t e n days l a t e r , a f t e r r e c e i v i n g no r e p l y t o h i s
l e t t e r of June 22, Brown c a l l e d t h e Glacier Colony t o s e e i f they
d i d n o t want t o come back t o s e e t h e Seaton ranch again, He
t a l k e d t o one of t h e l e a d e r s and was t o l d "forget i t , now, Brown, I I
A f t e r Brown was t o l d t o "forget it", he took no f u r t h e r
a c t i o n , thinking t h e H u t t e r i t e s would w a i t u n t i l t h e Jacobsen
farm l e a s e had expired and t h a t they would come back t o him. It
was unknown t o him t h a t t h e colony had voted t o buy t h e ranch
and had continued t o v i s i t t h e Seaton ranch throughout t h e balance
of t h e summer of 1967, and during t h e w i n t e r of 1968. Neither
d i d he know t h a t t h e l e a d e r s of the Glacier Colony during t h e
same period of time were n e g o t i a t i n g d i r e c t l y with Mrs. Seaton,
without going through him, doing s o one time i n company w i t h
another broker, Leonard Doran, and on s e v e r a l occasions by
themselves, It was a l s o unknown t o Brown t h a t Mrs. Seaton was
c o n t a c t i n g Charles Jacobsen during t h e f a l l of 1967 and w i n t e r
of 1968, t o determine whether o r n o t he would l e t h i s l e a s e
prevent a s a l e of t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony.
The colony l e a d e r s were n e g o t i a t i n g d i r e c t l y with Dorothy
Seaton o r h e r f i s c a l agent, a brother-in-law. Neither Brown nor
Stromberg were aware of t h e s e d e a l i n g s , During t h i s time she
s o l d a p a r c e l of f i v e t o s i x thousand a c r e s f o r around $40,000
and a p a r c e l of 160 a c r e s f o r $6,000; and i n March 1968 s o l d
t h e balance of t h e ranch t o t h e Glacier H u t t e r i t e s f o r $810,000,
s u b j e c t t o the leasehold i n t e r e s t of Charles Jacobsen.
Leonard Doran, a r e a l e s t a t e broker, had a l i s t i n g i n 1966
b u t when he went t o t h e ranch with t h e colony members he had no
valid listing. The colony l e a d e r s i n d i c a t e d t h a t he was t h e i r
broker b u t admitted they worked around him i n t h e end,
A f t e r t r i a l the d i s t r i c t c o u r t entered t h e following
findings of f a c t and cod.usions of law:
"FINDINGS O FACT
F
"1. Defendants1 motions f o r d i s m i s s a l should be
denied, and p l a i n t i f f , Matt ~ r o w n ' so f f e r e d evidence
of excerpts from t h e deposition of Dorothy M. Seaton
should be received.
"2. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, i s and has been a r e a l
e s t a t e broker, licensed by t h e S t a t e of Montana s i n c e
1958, and engaged i n t h e s a l e of ranch p r o p e r t i e s a t
Great F a l l s , Montana, and i n t h e surrounding a r e a .
"3. Defendant, Seaton Ranch Company, i s a Montana
corporation which owned a l a r g e ranch, known a s t h e
Seaton Ranch, i n Cascade County, Montana, near F o r t
Shaw, u n t i l March 27, 1968, and defendant, Dorothy
M. Seaton, i s and has been t h e owner of t h e e n t i r e
b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t i n s a i d corporation and i n complete
c o n t r o l of t h e corporation.
"4. On December 9, 1967, defendants employed p l a i n -
t i f f , Matt Brown, a s a r e a l e s t a t e broker t o s e l l t h e
Seaton ranch, under a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t of employment.
The w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t provided t h a t Matt Brown had a
'non-exclusive1 r i g h t t o s e l l t h e ranch u n t i l June
15, 1967, and l i s t e d a p r i c e of $900,000. The c o n t r a c t ,
a l s o provided:
I
I f you o r any o t h e r agents o r brokers
cooperating with you f i n d a buyer ready and
willing t o enter i n t o a deal for said price
and terms o r any such o t h e r p r i c e and terms
a s I may a c c e p t , o r any time during your
employment you p l a c e m i n c o n t a c t with a
e
buyer t o o r through whom a t any time w i t h i n
days a f t e r terminating s a i d employment,
I may s e l l o r convey s a i d property, I agree
- -
t o pay you i n cash f o r your s e r v i c e s a corn-
*
mission equal i n amount- t o 5 % of the
selling price. I
The c o n t r a c t f u r t h e r provided:
I
I agree t o pay any sum a Court may ad-
judge a s reasonable a t t o r n e y s ' f e e s i n c a s e
s u i t o r a c t i o n i s f i l e d on t h i s c o n t r a c t . '
The space permitting t h e i n s e r t i o n of t h e period of
time during which t h e broker would be e n t i t l e d t o a
commission f o r a s a l e consummated t o a p a r t y with whom
t h e broker placed t h e s e l l e r ' i n c o n t a c t 1 was n o t
s p e c i f i c a l l y discussed by t h e p a r t i e s a t the time they
entered i n t o t h e c o n t r a c t , but t h e conduct of t h e re-
s p e c t i v e p a r t i e s and t h e course of d e a l i n g between them,
viewed i n the l i g h t of t h e customs and usages i n t h e
s a l e of l a r g e ranches, c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t i t was
t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t o allow a reasonable t i m e
a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n d a t e during which t h e broker would
be e n t i t l e d t o t h e commission.
"5. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, had had two e a r l i e r
non-exclusive l i s t i n g s on t h e Seaton ranch, before he
obtained t h e l i s t i n g on December 9, 1966, under which
he had obtained a g r e a t d e a l of information and done
a g r e a t d e a l of work, which had given him an e x t e n s i v e
f a m i l i a r i t y with t h e d e t a i l s of t h e ranch and permitted
him t o r e p r e s e n t i t and d i s c u s s i t with prospective
buyers.
"6.011 o r about May 26, 1967, before the expira-
t i o n d a t e of h i s l i s t i n g , Matt Brown received a t e l e -
$me c a l l from t h e Glacier Colony of H u t t e r i t e s , n e a r
Cut Bank, Montana, i n q u i r i n g a s t o t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y of
l a r g e ranches. On May 26, 1967, he went from Great
F a l l s t o Cut Bank and attempted t o reach t h e colony,
b u t took a wrong road and was compelled t o s t a y over-
n i t e i n t h e Glacier Hotel i n Cut Bank. The n e x t mom-
i n g , on May 27, 1967, he went t o t h e headquarters of
t h e colony and m e t with the l e a d e r s of t h e colony,
and gave them information on one o t h e r ranch and de-
t a i l e d information on t h e Seaton ranch. The l e a d e r s of
t h e colony expressed a keen i n t e r e s t i n t h e Seaton
ranch, having only one o b j e c t i o n -- t h a t t h e r e was a
l e a s e on t h e farm land on t h e ranch t o a Charles Jacob-
sen which would n o t terminate u n t i l t h e end of t h e 1970
crop season -- and they urged Matt Brown t o take a c t i o n
t o attempt t o dispose of t h e outstanding leasehold
i n t e r e s t , a s s u r i n g him they would buy t h e ranch i f he
would do so.
"7. Within a day o r two a f t e r h e had i n t e r e s t e d
t h e Glacier Colony i n t h e Seaton ranch, and before t h e
e x p i r a t i o n d a t e of h i s l i s t i n g on June 15, 1967, Matt
Brown went t o t h e Seaton ranch and informed Dorothy M.
Seaton of t h e i n t e r e s t of the Glacier Colony i n t h e
purchase of t h e ranch, securing h e r assurance t h a t she
would n o t o b j e c t t o s e l l i n g t o H u t t e r i t e s . He a l s o
made two v i s i t s t o Charles Jacobsen i n attempts t o make
a d e a l t o buy t h e outstanding leasehold i n t e r e s t i n t h e
farm land h e l d by him.
"8. O June 21, 1967, Matt Brown met t h e l e a d e r s
n
of t h e Glacier Colony i n Great F a l l s , and drove them
out t o t h e Seaton ranch, where he spent a s u b s t a n t i a l
amount of t i m e going over t h e ranch with them and showing
i t t o them. A f t e r experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n g e t t i n g
h i s c a r stuck, h e took them back t o Great F a l l s , and
made arrangements t o take them t o b r e a k f a s t , t h e next
morning, and then t a k e them back out t o f i n i s h looking
a t t h e ranch.
"9. The next morning, June 22, 1967, Matt Brown
received a telephone c a l l from one of t h e l e a d e r s of
t h e Glacier Colony advising t h a t personal matters r e -
quired t h a t they r e t u r n t o t h e colony, n e a r Cut Bank,
and t h a t they would n o t be a b l e t o go back t o f i n i s h
looking a t t h e Seaton ranch. L a t e r , t h e same day, Matt
Brown wrote a l e t t e r t o John Entz, Secretary-Treasurer
of t h e Glacier Colony, expressing h i s disappointment
t h a t t h e H u t t e r i t e s had had t o r e t u r n t o t h e colony
b e f o r e seeing t h e balance of t h e Seaton ranch, and a s s u r -
i n g him of h i s i n t e r e s t i n n e g o t i a t i n g t h e terms of a
sale.
"10. Soon a f t e r June 22, 1967, Matt Brown c a l l e d
t h e Glacier Colony on t h e phone t o ask t h a t he be allowed
t o continue n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch,
and he was advised t h a t they were n o t i n t e r e s t e d --'to
forget i t , I
"11, Following t h e i r v i s i t t o t h e Seaton ranch
with Matt Brown on June 21, 1967, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e
Glacier Colony r e p e a t e d l y and continuously returned t o
t h e Seaton ranch, examining i t more minutely, and these
i n s p e c t i o n s continued a t l e a s t a s l a t e a s November, 1967,
when they were a b l e t o i n s p e c t t h e stand of t h e w i n t e r
wheat crop. On a t l e a s t two of t h e s e occasions they met
with Mrs. Seaton a t t h e ranch t o d i s c u s s t h e purchase
of t h e ranch.
"12. I t appears t h a t t h e Glacier Colony received
some information concerning t h e Seaton ranch from E.C.
Stromberg p r i o r t o t h e a c t i v i t y of Matt Brown with
r e s p e c t t o t h e Glacier Colony, b u t E. C. Stromberg never
aroused s u f f i c i e n t i n t e r e s t i n t h e Glacier Colony t o make
them request a showing, and t h e r e i s no s u b s t a n t i a l e v i -
dence t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e Glacier Colony ever had any
genuine i n t e r e s t i n buying t h e Seaton ranch a s a r e s u l t
of anything done by E. C , Stromberg.
"13. I t appears t h a t some members of t h e Glacier
Colony v i s i t e d t h e Seaton ranch during t h e summer of
1967, i n company with one Leonard Doran, a r e a l e s t a t e
broker who had previously had a non-exclusive l i s t i n g
which had expired i n 1966, with no provision t h a t i t
could have any e f f e c t whatsoever beyond i t s e x p i r a t i o n
d a t e unless e a r n e s t money had been deposited. There
i s no c r e d i b l e evidence e s t a b l i s h i n g s p e c i f i c d a t e s
f o r any v i s i t s of t h e Glacier Colony H u t t e r i t e s t o t h e
Seaton ranch p r i o r t o t h e i r v i s i t with Matt Brown on
June 21, 1967, and t h e r e i s no c r e d i b l e evidence t h a t
t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony became genuinely
i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e purchase of t h e Seaton ranch a s t h e
r e s u l t of any a c t i v i t i e s by Leonard Doran, o r otherwise,
p r i o r t o t h e time Matt Brown v i s i t e d t h e Glacier Colony
on May 27, 1967.
"14. Dorothy M, Seaton had, by h e r own e s t i m a t e ,
given twenty non-exclusive l i s t i n g s f o r t h e s a l e of
t h e Seaton ranch between t h e death of h e r husband i n
1965 and t h e end of 1966, and was w i l l i n g t o s e l l t h e
ranch a t a l l times h e r e i n concerned. The l i s t i n g given
t o Matt Brown on December 9 , 1966, was t h e l a s t l i s t i n g
given.
"15. During t h e f a l l of 1967, Dorothy M. Seaton
s o l d c e r t a i n p a r c e l s of t h e ranch which had been included
i n Matt Brown s l i s t i n g , s e p a r a t e l y from the r e s t of t h e
ranch -- one of 5,000 a c r e s bringing a t l e a s t $25,000 o r
$30,000, and one of 160 a c r e s bringing a t l e a s t $6,000.
"16. During t h e w i n t e r of 1967-1968, Dorothy M.
Seaton was absent from t h e S t a t e of Montana f o r a con-
s i d e r a b l e period of time, being i n C a l i f o r n i a , and,
during t h i s time, t h e l e a d e r s of t h e Glacier Colony of
H u t t e r i t e s n e g o t i a t e d f o r t h e purchase of the Seaton
ranch with h e r brother-in-law, Robert W. Gronberg, a
banker i n Choteau, Montana, who had a q u a l i f y i n g share
of s t o c k i n t h e Seaton Ranch Company and was Vice
P r e s i d e n t , and who was a l s o M r s . Seaton's a d v i s e r i n
f i n a n c i a l matters.
"17. A f t e r s e v e r a l meetings i n t h e bank of
Robert W. Gronberg, i n Choteau, a s a l e of t h e Seaton
Ranch from t h e Seaton Ranch Company t o t h e Glacier
Colony was consummated on March 27, 1968, f o r a p r i c e
of $810,000, subj.ect t o t h e outstanding l e a s e of
Charles Jacobsen, n o t including t h e p a r t s of t h e ranch
which had been previously disposed o f , and without t h e
payment of any r e a l e s t a t e commission.
"18. The conduct of Dorothy M. Seaton, subse-
quent t o being informed of t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier
Colony i n buying t h e Seaton ranch, i n l a t e May o r e a r l y
June, 1967, e x h i b i t e d an i n t e n t i o n and design t o exclude
Matt Brown from f u r t h e r n e g o t i a t i o n s f o r t h e s a l e of
t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony f o r t h e purpose
of avoiding t h e payment of a r e a l e s t a t e commission,
which i n t e n t i o n and design were pursued u n t i l the s a l e
was consummated.
"19. The a c t i v i t i e s of Matt Brown, and p a r t i c u l a r l y
h i s a c t i v i t i e s from May 26, 1967, through June 22, 1967,
were t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of the s a l e of t h e
Seaton Ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony.
"20. Under a l l of the circumstances, and i n view
of t h e c o n t i n u i t y of t h e i n t e r e s t of t h e eventual pur-
chaser and t h e c o n t i n u i t y of t h e n e g o t i a t i o n s , t h e
period of time from June 15, 1967 t o March 2 7 , 1968,
i s a reasonable time t o be allowed during which Matt
Brown would be e n t i t l e d t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission
i n connection with a s a l e t o a buyer with whom he had
put t h e s e l l e r i n c o n t a c t .
"21. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, has been compelled
t o employ a t t o r n e y s t o prosecute t h i s a c t i o n , and h i s
a t t o r n e y s were required t o expend a t l e a s t 144,5 hours
i n t h e prosecution of t h e c a s e , n o t including two days
p r e - t r i a l p r e p a r a t i o n , two days i n t r i a l , and t i m e
subsequent, and s a i d s e r v i c e s a r e of a reasonable v a l u e
of $3,783.56.
"CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
"1. The e f f o r t s of p l a i n t i f f Matt Brown were t h e
e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton
ranch from t h e Seaton Ranch Company t o t h e Glacier Colony,
a t a p r i c e of $810,000, which p r i c e was w i t h i n t h e con-
templation of t h e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t between t h e Seaton
Ranch Company and Matt Brown, and Matt Brown i s e n t i t l e d
t o a r e a l e s t a t e commission i n t h e sum of $40,500.00
"2. P l a i n t i f f , Matt Brown, i s e n t i t l e d t o a f u r t h e r
sum i n t h e amount of $3,783.56, a s and f o r h i s a t t o r n e y ' s
f e e s h e r e i n , t o g e t h e r with h i s c o s t s incurred."
P l a i n t i f f - a p p e l l a n t E. C. Stromberg r a i s e s these i s s u e s
on appeal:
1. The c o u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h a t E. C. Stromberg had
t h e only v a l i d a n d # l e g a l r e a l e s t a t e l i s t i n g t o s e l l t h e Seaton
ranch during March 1968.
2. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Matt Brown
r a t h e r than E. C. Stromberg was t h e e f f i c i e n t and procuring
cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton ranch t o t h e Glacier H u t t e r i t e
Colony.
3. The c a u r t e r r e d i n n o t f i n d i n g t h a t Mrs. Dorothy Seaton
f r a u d u l e n t l y and/or i n bad f a i t h intervened and prevented E. C.
Stromberg from concluding t h e aforementioned s a l e .
Defendant-appellants Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy Seaton
r a i s e t h e s e i s s u e s on appeal:
1. Whether t h e evidence on record supports t h e f i n d i n g s
of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , more p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e following:
(a) That, p r i o r t o t h e e x p i r a t i o n of h i s l i s t i n g
c o n t r a c t , p l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t Matt Brown informed
Dorothy Seaton of an i n t e r e s t of t h e Glacier Colony
of t h e H u t t e r i t e Order i n purchasing t h e property of
t h e Seaton Ranch Company.
(b) That M r s . Seaton had design and i n t e n t i o n
t o exclude Brown from n e g o t i a t i o n s regarding t h e s a l e
of t h e ranch f o r t h e purpose of avoiding t h e payment
of r e a l t o r ' s commission t o Brown.
2. Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t Brown
was t h e e f f i c i e n t procuring cause of t h e s a l e of t h e Seaton
ranch t o t h e Glacier Colony.
3. Whether during t h e t e r m of Brown's l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t
he found a buyer ready, w i l l i n g and a b l e t o e n t e r i n t o a "deal"
f o r t h e purchase of t h e Seaton ranch property and i f n o t , whether
h i s f a i l u r e t o do s o b a r s him from recovery of a r e a l e s t a t e
commission.
4, Whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g judgment
a g a i n s t t h e i n d i v i d u a l defendant, Dorothy M. Seaton.
A s i s i n d i c a t e d i n t h e summary of t h e f a c t s , t h e r e was an
unusual amount of evidence presented t o t h e t r i a l judge which
r e s u l t e d i n numerous c o n f l i c t s i n t h e evidence, H was t h e
e
one who had t h e only opportunity t o s e e and hear a l l witnesses.
Each p a r t y makes a s t r o n g argument t h a t t h e s e f a c t s and circum-
s t a n c e s favor h i s p o s i t i o n . Yet, a s has been s t a t e d by t h i s
Court too many times t a r e q u i r e c i t a t i o n , i t i s not t h i s Court's
province t o review t h e record of t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o determine
whether o r not we agree with t h e conclusions reached, i f supported
by t h e evidence. W must indulge t h e presumption t h a t t h e judg-
e
ment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d
unless t h e r e i s a c l e a r preponderance of evidence a g a i n s t i t
when viewed i n t h e l i g h t most favorable t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y ,
i n t h i s c a s e p l a i n t i f f - r e s p o n d e n t Matt Brown. The burden r e s t s
with t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o make t h i s showing, W do n o t f i n d t h a t
e
they have c a r r i e d t h e burden.
The p r i n c i p a l argument of Seaton Ranch Company and Dorothy
Seaton i s grounded on t h e a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e chain of events
which occurred a f t e r t h e primary t e r m of Matt Brown's c o n t r a c t
expired on June 15, 1967, must be viewed a s i r r e l e v a n t and
t h a t t h e evidence must show Brown produced a ready, w i l l i n g ,
and a b l e buyer before t h a t date. This p o s i t i o n i s urged under
t h e holding i n F l i n d e r s v. G i l b e r t , 141 Mont. 442, 378 P,2d 385,
which they contend has t h e e f f e c t of rendering a l l nonexclusive
l i s t i n g s s u b j e c t t o t h e standard of r e q u i r i n g t h e broker t o be
t h e procuring cause by producing a buyer ready, w i l l i n g , and
a b l e before a commission w i l l be required t o be paid r e g a r d l e s s
of t h e l a s t paragraph of t h e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t which governs t h e
r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r t h e term of t h e primary c o n t r a c t
expires.
W do n o t q u a r r e l with F l i n d e r s o r i t s a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e
e
f a c t s i t u a t i o n i n t h a t case. W do n o t agree with t h e broad
e
a p p l i c a t i o n given t o F l i n d e r s by a p p e l l a n t s here. Brbefly,
t h a t case involves a d i s p u t e between two brokers whose l i s t i n g
c o n t r a c t s had n o t expired and t h e Court h e l d t h a t t h e paragraph
s i m i l a r t o t h e one i n d i s p u t e here d i d n o t apply i n t h a t c a s e
because p l a i n t i f f ' s employment had not terminated a t t h e time
t h e s a l e was made through broker Hunt. And, by way of dictum,
the c o u r t observed t h a t t h e paragraph which governed t h e r i g h t s
of t h e p a r t i e s a f t e r e x p i r a t i o n of t h e l i s t i n g , even though i t
had no a p p l i c a t i o n , was consonant with a paragraph t h a t was
s t r i c k e n , which paragraph contained exclusive c o n t r a c t provisions.
This was found t o bear on t h e i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s i n t h a t c a s e ,
I t would be d i f f i c u l t t o apply t h a t standard t o a l l nonexclu-
s i v e l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t s , such a s i n the p r e s e n t c a s e , when i t
appears no s u b s t a n t i a l language was s t r i c k e n . I t i s possible t o
e n t e r i n t o a nonexclusive l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t with t h i s type of
p r o t e c t i o n afforded f o r a time a f t e r t h e e x p i r a t i o n of t h e
agreement. See Annotation, 27 ALR2d 1408. Each c a s e would
have t o be examined on i t s own circumstances. But, more important
h e r e i s t h e d e c l a r a t i o n by t h e Court i n F l i n d e r s t h a t t h e r e was
no bad f a i t h o r fraud by e i t h e r p l a i n t i f f o r defendant, and t h e
commission was paid. I f t h e f i n d i n g on fraud o r bad f a i t h had
been t o t h e c o n t r a r y , then c e r t a i n l y t h e judgment would n o t have
been affirmed i n Hunt's favor.
Here, t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n i t s f i n d i n g of f a c t No. 18 found
bad f a i t h i n t h e i n t e r r u p t i o n and exclusion of Matt Brown from
productive n e g o t i a t i o n s by t h e s e l l e r , which continued u n t i l
t h e s a l e was consummated. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l d i r e c t and c i r -
cumstantial evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s finding.
This f i n d i n g i s strengthened by s t r o n g evidence of bad f a i t h on
t h e p a r t of the buyers working i n concert with t h e s e l l e r ,
W cannot overlook the f a c t t h a t t h e b u y e r ' s cooperation made
e
i t l e s s d i f f i c u l t t o achieve t h e exclusion, and p a r t i c u l a r l y
when t h e f i n a n c i a l gain from t h i s type of a c t i v i t y enured t o
t h e b e n e f i t of both s e l l e r and buyer.
There i s c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s
f i n d i n g a s between p l a i n t i f f Brown and p l a i n t i f f Stromberg.
Both were equally e n t i t l e d t o s e l l t h e property and both were
proceeding i n a good f a i t h e f f o r t t o do so. Even though
~ t r o m b e r g ' s l i s t i n g had n o t expired, t h i s i s n o t c o n t r o l l i n g a s
between t h e two p l a i n t i f f s under t h e circumstances of t h i s case.
A s t h e evidence demonstrates, Stromberg worked hard with t h e
buyers, a s did Brown, over a period of time. However, Stromberg's
r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e G l a c i e r Colony became impaired and he relaxed
h i s e f f o r t and f a i l e d t o c a r r y through and show t h e property
t o t h e Colony. B h i s own testimony he was not prepared t o "take
y
them by t h e hand"; he f e l t a s a t u r a t i o n p o i n t had been reached.
About t h i s time Brown d i d show the property and kept a f t e r a l l
parties trying t o negotiate a sale. The law i s c l e a r t h a t i f
~ r o w n ' sprimary l i s t i n g c o n t r a c t expired during a c t i v e negotia-
t i o n s he could not be excluded, This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e i n
t h i s c a s e where t h e c o u r t found Brown d i d not r e l a x h i s e f f o r t s
b u t was prevented by t h e a c t i o n s of t h e defendant from proceeding
during a c t u a l n e g o t i a t i o n s t h a t d i d r e s u l t i n a s a l e . See:
Bartsas Realty, Inc. v. Leverton, 82 Nev.6, 409 P.2d 627; F l i n d e r s
v. G i l b e r t , 141 Mont. 442, 378 P.2d 385; 43 A.L.R. 1096; 46 ALR2d
854; Shober v. Blackford, 46 Mont, 194, 127 P. 329.
The reasonableness of t h e time involved i n t h i s case has
a l s o been questioned by defendants. Under usual circumstances
time allowed t o p r o t e c t t h e broker a f t e r e x p i r a t i o n of t h e
p r i n c i p a l l i s t i n g under a p r o t e c t i v e paragraph, i f no time period
i s named, i s held t o be a reasonable time, Reasonable time
i n t r a n s a c t i o n s of t h i s type i s determined by t h e n a t u r e and
c h a r a c t e r of the s e r v i c e t o be rendered, magnitude of t h e under-
taking, t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s , and a l l t h e f a c t s and
circumstances of t h e case. 12 C.J.S. Brokers 5 88, p. 203.
Under a l l the circumstances of t h i s c a s e i t would appear t h a t
t h i s t e s t has been met.
Concerning defendants' i s s u e No. 4 r e l a t i n g t o t h e personal
l i a b i l i t y of Dorothy Seaton f o r payment of t h e r e a l e s t a t e
commission, i t i s abundantly c l e a r from the evidence t h a t
Dorothy Seaton i s t h e a l t e r ego of Seaton Ranch Company by
reason of h e r ownership of t h e e n t i r e b e n e f i c i a l i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n .
Under such circumstances e q u i t y demands t h a t t h e Court p i e r c e t h e
corporate v e i l . Accordingly defendant Dorothy Seaton i s per-
s o n a l l y l i a b l e f o r payment of t h e commission a s determined by
the t r i a l court.
The judgment of t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s affirmed.
/ / Chief J u s t i c e