No. 13168
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1976
BETTY and LOUIS DeLAURENTIS,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
DR. L.E. V A I N I O ; HELEN MARIE
V A N I O , and GLENN PRYOR,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Arnold O l s e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record :
For A p p e l l a n t s :
McCaffery and P e t e r s o n , B u t t e , Montana
W. Il. Murray, Jr. a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
F o r Respondents:
Maurice M a f f e i a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
Submitted: March 2 , 1976
Decided h! M
A
. 3
? ~ r .J u s t i c e Gene 3 . 3aly .lelivereJ rhe J p i n i o n 3i- rile L o u r t .
T h i s i s a n appeal from a judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ,
5ilver 3ow County, d i s s o l v i n g a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and
hdlding defendants not i n v i o l a t i o n of a r e s t r i c t i v e covenant
~ r o h i b i t i n gt r a i l e r s o r mobile homes b e i n g used a s permanent
residences on t h e p r o p e r t y i n q u e s t i o n .
On June 5 , 1975, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a n a c t i o n i n t h e
d i s c r i c t c o u r t s e e k i n g an i n j u n c t i o n t o p r e v e n t d e f e n d a n t s from
v ~ o l a t i n ga r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t . The c o m p l a i n t a l l e g e d t h a t
{ ) L a i n t i f f s B e t t y and L o u i s D e l a u r e n t i s , husband and w i f e , were
t h e owners o f Lot No. 6 , McNeece A d d i t i o n t o t h e c i t y o f B u t t e ,
'vlontana. That d e f e n d a n t s L. E . V a i n i o and Helen V a i n i o were t h e
Jwrlers of Lot No. 5 , McNeece A d d i t i o n . i t was a l l e g e d d e f e n d a n t
3 ~ e n nP r y o r made a commitment t o p u r c h a s e Lot No. 5 from de-
f e n d a n t s V a i n i o and i n t e n d e d t o i n s t a l l a " ~ a r r i n g t o n " d o u b l e wide
t r a i l e r upon a permanent f o u n d a t i o n on Lot No. 5 . The c o m p l a i n t
f u r t h e r a l l e g e d t h a t t h e g r a n t deeds t o b o t h l o t s c o n t a i n e d a
r e s t r i c t i v e covenant t h a t p r o v i d e d :
"NO t r a i l e r s o r mobile homes s h a l l b e used
a s a permanent r e s i d e n c e on s a i d p r e m i s e s . I I
Upon an a l l e g a t i o n t h a t t h e v i o l a t i o n o f t h e covenant
would c a u s e g r e a t and i r r e p a r a b l e i n j u r y t o p l a i n t i f f s , t h e d i s t r i c t
L o u r t i s s u e d a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and an o r d e r t o show
c a u s e o r d e r i n g d e f e n d a n t s t o a p p e a r f o r h e a r i n g on June 1 6 , 1975,
and t o c e a s e and d e s i s t from i n s t a l l i n g t h e d o u b l e wide t r a i l e r on
t o c No. 5 i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t . Hearing was
held on June 1 6 , 1975, on t h e o r d e r t o show c a u s e . Thereafter,
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d judgment f o r d e f e n d a n t s and d i s s o l v e d
the temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r . The c o u r t i n i t s judgment and
srder said:
I I9c ;
I
; *
t h e B a r r i n g t o n Home b e i n g purchased by t h e
Defendant Glenn P r y o r , and t o b e e r e c t e d upon t h e
Lot owned by t h e Defendants [ V a i n i o ] i s n o t a t r a i l e r
o r mobile, b u t i s a modular home o r house and
t h e r e f o r e i s n o ltI i n v i o l a t i o n of t h e r e s t r i c t i v e
covenant * * *.
P l a i n t i f f s appeal from t h e j udgmen t .
Numerous i s s u e s a r e presented f o r review by t h i s Court,
b u t t h e c o n t r o l l i n g i s s u e i s whether t h e s t r u c t u r e intended t o be
placed on Lot No. 5 i s a t r a i l e r o r mobile home. Was t h e r e
s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e evidence t o support t h e judgment of t h e
t r i a l c o u r t , which was rendered without f i n d i n g s .of f a c t o r
conclusions of law?
The s t r u c t u r e i n q u e s t i o n i s known a s a Barrington double
wide "mobile home". I t c o n s i s t s of two u n i t s , each measuring
1 2 ' wide by 64' long, and when joined form a home 24' wide by
64' long. I t has a s h i n g l e d r o o f , house-type s i d i n g , and i s a
frame c o n s t r u c t i o n . Each u n i t was r e c e i v e d from t h e manufacturer
w i t h wheels and a x l e s and was s o l d t o Pryor w i t h t h e wheels
and a x l e s i n t a c t . The s t r u c t u r e was manufactured i n Idaho and
was c e r t i f i e d by t h e Recreation and Mobile Home Department of t h a t
state. The s t r u c t u r e was purchased from Great Western T r a i l e r
S a l e s i n B u t t e , Montana, and i s t o be placed on a permanent con-
c r e t e foundation.
Defendants c l a i m and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t found, t h a t t h e
s t r u c t u r e i s a modular t y p e home. Defendants g i v e us i n t h e i r b r i e f
on a p p e a l , t h i s d e f i n i t i o n of t h e word "modular", taken from t h e
l a r e s t Merriam-ltrebster d i c t i o n a r y : "adj. r e l a t i n g t o , o r based
JL Jimensions f o r f l e x i b i l i t y and v a r i e t y i n u s e . If Defendants
a l l e g e t h e r e a r e t h r e e d i f f e r e n c e s between a modular home and
a mobile home ;
(1) A modular home can be c o n s t r u c t e d i n d u p l i c a t e
c e s i l i o ~J~ t h e s i t e by a c o n t r a c t o r .
n A mobile home c a n n o t b e
l u p l i c a t e d b y a c o n t r a c t o r b e c a u s e "it i s made o f p i e c e s of m e t a l
, i d i n g and t h e r o o f i s one p i e c e of s t e e l . "
(2) Plodular homes have e a v e s t w e l v e t o t w e n t y - f o u r i n c h e s
wide which can be r e t r a c t e d d u r i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n . Mobile homes
i o n o t have e a v e s b e c a u s e mobile homes a r e c o n s t r u c t e d s t r i c t l y o f
nletal and t h e e a v e s c a n n o t b e r e t r a c t e d o r f o l d e d d u r i n g t r a n s -
?oxtation.
(3) The purpose o f wheels and a x l e s on a modular u n i t i s
CU : ~ i u v i d ean i n e x p e n s i v e means o f t r a n s p o r t i n g t h e u n i t from
:he f a c t o r y t o t h e d e a l e r ' s l o t and t h e n t o t h e b u i l d i n g s i t e .
!h purpose of wheels and a x l e s on a mobile home i s t o p r o v i d e
'e
a c h a s s i s f o r movement upon a highway.
The s t r u c t u r e i n q u e s t i o n h e r e may v e r y w e l l b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d
ds ,nodular u n d e r t h e l i m i t e d d e f i n i t i o n p r o v i d e d by d e f e n d a n t s .
!hd s t r u c t u r e a l s o meets t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a mobile home u n d e r
"lorltana s t a t u t o r y law. The Montana l e g i s l a t u r e h a s g i v e n t h e
d o n s t r u c t i o n and Maintenance D i v i s i o n o f t h e Montana Department
II
.JL A d m i n i s t r a t i o n a u t h o r i t y t o a d o p t a d e f i n i t i o n o f m o b i l e home"
f o r p u r p o s e s o f a d o p t i n g and e n f o r c i n g b u i l d i n g c o d e s w i t h i n t h e
state. S e c t i o n s 69-2105(14), 69-2122, R.C.M. 1947. Pursuant t o
t h a t a u t h o r i t y t h e C o n s t r u c t i o n and Maintenance D i v i s i o n a d o p t e d
t h i s definition:
"(13) Mobile home means any d w e l l i n g u n i t l a r g e r t h a n
two hundred f i f t y - s i x (256) s q u a r e f e e t i n a r e a which
i s e i t h e r wholly o r i n s u b s t a n t i a l p a r t manufactured a t
a n o f f - s i t e l o c a t i o n and any movable o r p o r t a b l e d w e l l i n g
o v e r t h i r t y - t w o (32) f e e t i n l e n g t h and o v e r e i g h t (8) f e e t
wide, c o n s t r u c t e d t o b e towed on i t s own c h a s s i s and
d e s i g n e d w i t h o u t a permanent f o u n d a t i o n f o r year-round
occupancy, which i n c l u d e s one (1) o r more components t h a t
can b e r e t r a c t e d f o r towing purposes and s u b s e q u e n t l y
expanded f o r a d d i t i o n a l c a p a c i t y , o r o f two (2) o r more
u n i t s s e p a r a t e l y towable b u t d e s i g n e d t o b e j o i n e d i n t o
one ( I ) i n t e g r a l u n i t , a s w e l l a s a p o r t a b l e d w e l l i n g
composed 6f a s i n g l e u n i t . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
MAC 2-2.10(6)-S10220 (13). See a l s o MAC 2-2.10(6)-
S10180.
Defendants a r g u e t h e s t a t u t e s and c a s e s on t h e s u b j e c t
p r e d a t e t h e modular home concept and t h e t e r m "modular" s h o u l d b e
construed. T h i s i s probably t r u e , however, t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n
s h o u l d come from t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . There a r e many r e a s o n s f o r
t h i s , i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e f a c t t h i s record does not contain expert
t e s t i m o n y o f such d e p t h o r q u a l i t y t o p e r m i t j u d i c i a l d e f i n i t i o n .
J e r r y Hanson, salesman f o r Great Western T r a i l e r S a l e s , who s o l d
t h e double wide t o Glenn P r y o r , does n o t g e t i n t o t h e s u b j e c t
f i r m enough o r w i t h t h e k i n d of e v i d e n c e t h a t c o u l d t a k e i t o u t
o f t h e Montana s t a t u t a r y d e f i n i t i o n .
Defendants r a i s e t h e i s s u e t h a t p l a i n t i f f s ' c o m p l a i n t was
not properly verified. The o b j e c t i o n p l a c e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t
was t h a t t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n was on i n f o r m a t i o n and b e l i e f . The
d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o o k t h e motion under advisement and asked f o r
b r i e f s and proceeded w i t h t h e h e a r i n g .
The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t h e r e a f t e r r u l e d f o r d e f e n d a n t s on t h e
m e r i t s and d i s s o l v e d t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n . T h i s had t h e l e g a l
e f f e c t of a d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t s f motion t o d i s m i s s p l a i n t i f f s f
complaint. T h i s d e n i a l o f d e f e n d a n t s f motion i s a n a p p e a l a b l e
o r d e r and cannot b e reviewed on a p p e a l from t h e judgment on t h e
merits. L i t t l e Horn S t a t e Bank v. Gross, 89 Mont. 472, 476, 300
P. 277. I n any e v e n t , t h e v e r i f i c a t i o n r e q u i r e m e n t of s e c t i o n
93-4205, R.C.M. 1947, i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t o be f o r t h e purpose
o f i n s u r i n g good f a i t h and t r u t h f u l n e s s on t h e p a r t o f t h e com-
plainant. B u t t e & Boston C o n s o l i d a t e d Mining Co. v. Montana Ore
::he complainant t e s t i f i e d under d a t h on t h e m a t t e r s c o n t a i n e d
iri t h e c o m p l a i n t and a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t h e i s s u e would become
W Find i n s u f f i c i e n t c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e
e
c r ~ a ! . ~ c i u r t . The judgment i s r e v e r s e d and remanded w i t h d i r e c t i o n
::cj e n t e r judgment f o r p l a i n t i f f s .
/?
LL& Justice
Justices
M 4-
-
- V
~ d n .Bernard Thomas, ~ i i t r i c t .Tudgc,
s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of Chief J u s t i c e
James T. H a r r i s o n .