Martin v. Randono

No. 13349

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F

W. D. (DON) MARTIN, e t ux. ,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

GENE R N O O e t ux.
A D N , and GREAT FALLS FOREST
PRODUCTS INC.

Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable P e t e r G . Meloy, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For A p p e l l a n t s :

S t i m a t z and E n g e l , B u t t e , Montana
J o s e p h E n g e l , I11 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana

For Respondents:

K n i g h t , Dahood and Mackay, Anaconda, Montana
Conde F. Mackay a r g u e d , Anaconda, Montana

Submitted: March 1 7 , 1977

Decided: Jm 10 1978

,JAB 2 f
? 't!j'fe
Filed:
M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an appeal from a judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court,

Lewis and Clark County, decreeing t h a t p l a i n t i f f W. D . (Don)

Martin, e t ux. (Martins) were e n t i t l e d t o 22 a c r e s of land by

v i r t u e of adverse possession under claim of t i t l e .

The land involved i s located seven miles e a s t of Lincoln,

Montana. It c o n s i s t s of 22 a c r e s of wooded f o r e s t land. A saw-

m i l l was l o c a t e d on t h e property along with s e v e r a l o t h e r

s t r u c t u r e s and was operated by the Pappin Construction Co.

u n t i l 1964. Don Martin was employed by Pappin a s t h e foreman

of t h e sawing crew. Since 1959, Martin a l s o maintained h i s

family residence, a mobile home, p a r t i a l l y on t h e land i n d i s -

pute. I n 1964, t h e Great F a l l s F o r e s t Products, I n c . , ( a

Randono family owned corporation) acqbired t h e land and a l s o

took over t h e logging and sawmill operations. The family corpora-

t i o n r e t a i n e d employees from t h e Pappin Construction Co., i n -

cluding Don Martin. The art ins' t r a i l e r home stayed i n t h e
same place.

I n t h e spring 1965 t h e Great F a l l s F o r e s t Products, Inc.

f i n i s h i n g m i l l burned down and went out of b u s i n e s s ; a s a r e s u l t

very s h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , t h e logging and sawmill operation a t

Lincoln terminated. I t i s c l e a r t h a t up t o t h i s point Martins

acknowledge they were on t h e land involved with t h e permission

of t h e Randono family corporation. Don Martin t e s t i f i e d t h a t

i n l a t e 1965 o r e a r l y 1971 he talked with Gene Randono, t h e

p r e s i d e n t of t h e family corporation, and Randono asked him t o

pay $50 per month r e n t a s a condition t o remaining on t h e property

with h i s t r a i l e r home.
 This testimony was given a t t h e t r i a l :

"Q.* * * Mr. Martin, a f t e r t h e termination of t h e
operation of t h e m i l l by Gray, d i d anything take
p l a c e between you and any member of t h e Defendant
corporation r e l a t i v e t o your presence on t h e premises?

"A. Yes. I talked t o Gene Randono. He informed m e
t h a t i f I was going t o remain on t h e property I would
pay $50 a month r e n t . I informed him I would n o t .
I considered t h e ground a s mine .I1

I n i t s f i n d i n g s t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d on t h i s statement

exclusively a s being a s u f f i c i e n t d e c l a r a t i o n of i n t e n t t o

adversely possess t h e property.

On t h e o t h e r hand, W. A . Randono, t h e v i c e p r e s i d e n t of

t h e family corporation (who a t t h e time of t h e a l l e g e d statement

was only 17 o r 18 years of age) t e s t i f i e d t h a t Gene Randono o r a l l y

permitted Martin t o keep h i s t r a i l e r on t h e land i n exchange f o r

M a r t i n ' s s e r v i c e s a s a watchman over t h e property and t h e s t r u c -

t u r e s located on t h e property. I n any e v e n t , Gene Randono and

h i s wife C a r r o l , both defendants i n t h i s a c t i o n , l e f t soon

t h e r e a f t e r t o l i v e i n Nevada and apparently remained t h e r e .

A f t e r t h e sawmill was closed Martin acknowedged t h a t f o r

a s h o r t time he performed s e r v i c e s a s a watchman f o r Gene

Randono. Property t a x e s assessed upon t h e property by Lewis

and Clark County f e l l delinquent f o r t h e years 1964 through

1970. The property was s t r u c k o f f t o t h e county. I n January

1971 Don Martin and J . P. Mulcare (not a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n )

paid $2,670.14 t o t h e Lewis and Clark County Treasurer and

received a c e r t i f i c a t e of assignment f o r t h e delinquent t a x e s .

Martin and Mulcare together had been involved i n previous

property a c q u i s i t i o n s . L a t e r , Martin paid Mulcare's one-half

of t h e t a x assignment and Mulcare delived a q u i t claim deed t o

Martin. During d i r e c t examination a t t r i a l Don Martin was
asked why he d i d n o t pay t h e taxes each year a s they accrued.

He answered:

A . I didn' t want t o a l e r t them [ t h e Randonos]
t o t h e f a c t . I figured they should know i f t h e
taxes were due. They should be paid. I f they
weren't paid, I wanted i t l e f t q u i e t and when
f i v e years was up I figured I would take it."

A f t e r t h e sawmill closed Don Martin and h i s son Frank

had a conversation concerning where Don Martin was going t o

live. T e s t i f y i n g f o r h i s f a t h e r , Frank r e p l i e d t o a question

on d i r e c t examination concerning whether Don Martin ever t o l d

Frank he was attempting t o o b t a i n ownership of the property:

"A. Well, when I asked him where he was going t o
l i v e , he s a i d he was going t o s t a y t h e r e and s e e
i f he c o u l d n ' t g e t it f o r back taxes l a t e r on i n
t h e f u t u r e sometime ."
During t h e summer 1971, a f t e r Don Martin had taken t h e

t a x assignment, a cabin which was approximately 150 f e e t from

t h e Martin t r a i l e r home, mysteriously burned t o t h e ground.

O May 31, 1972, t h e family corporation redeemed t h e t a x
n

assignment by paying $2,956.83 t o t h e Lewis and Clark County

Treasurer. The county t r e a s u r e r s e n t a refund t o Don Martin b u t

apparently Martin refused t o cash t h e check, claiming t h e land

belonged t o him. Presumably t h e county t r e a s u r e r s t i l l holds

t h e money i n t r u s t f o r Martin. Soon a f t e r t h i s redemption t h e

family corporation t r i e d t o s e l l t h e land t o a Missoula land

s p e c u l a t o r , b u t they were accosted by Martin who claimed t h e

land belonged t o him and ordered them o f f t h e land.

The t o t a l acreage of t h e land involved was approximately

22 a c r e s and t h e r e was a standing fence on one s i d e only. The

only p o r t i o n enclosed was around t h e Martin t r a i l e r home. The

Martins d i d n o t put t h e e n t i r e 22 a c r e s t o t h e i r own use by
e i t h e r c u l t i v a t i n g t h e land o r enclosing i t . They did however,

occasionally p a s t u r e a few t e t h e r e d horses on t h e land. To

f a c i l i t a t e access t o t h e i r t r a i l e r home t h e Martins b u i l t a

driveway. They a l s o cleaned up p a r t of t h e property by r e -

moving c a r bodies and dead t r e e s . Other than t h i s t h e land

remained unimproved. There was s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r i o r a t i o n t o

t h e b u i l d i n g s on t h e land and t o t h e fence.

I t i s undisputed t h a t W. A . Randono came f r e q u e n t l y t o

t h e land during t h e years involved and e s p e c i a l l y during t h e

summer and on weekends. Frequently he would bring h i s b r o t h e r s

and f r i e n d s with him from t h e University of Montana. Later h i s

wife a l s o came t o t h e property on many occasions. Frequently

they h e l d p a r t i e s i n t h e cabin and on one occasion i n 1969,

t h i s i r r i t a t e d t h e Martins t o t h e e x t e n t they c a l l e d t h e s h e r i f f

and had him come t o check out t h e s i t u a t i o n . The deputy t e s t i -

f i e d a s t o h i s reason f o r m i n g t o t h e cabin:

"A. One n i g h t I received a c a l l from M r . Martin
t h a t t h e r e were people i n a cabin very c l o s e t o
h i s property who were apparently moving i n . They
were having p a r t i e s and a l o t of n o i s e and he r e -
quested t h a t something be done about i t s o he could
g e t h i s s l e e p a t night."

A f t e r t a l k i n g t o t h e occupants of t h e cabin, t h e s h e r i f f returned

t o Don Martin and reported t h i s conversation:

"A. **He [W .A. Randono] s a i d t h e r e was no
problem t h a t t h e cabin belonged t o h i s uncle
[Gene Randono]. So I have no way of determining
proof of ownership of property, so a t t h a t point
I returned t o M r . Martin and t o l d him what I
found out and i f anything was t o proceed from t h e r e ,
i t would probably have t o be a c i v i l s u i t . "

During t h i s e n t i r e period t h e Martins admitted t h e

Randonos and t h e i r f r i e n d s used t h e cabin and stayed t h e r e

f o r v a r i o u s periods of time. While t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p was n o t
always t h e b e s t between t h e Martins and t h e young Randonos,

Martins n e v e r d i r e c t l y t o l d t h e Randonos t h e y owned t h e l a n d

and must g e t permission t o use t h e l a n d and s t a y i n t h e c a b i n s .

During d i r e c t examination Don Martin a d m i t t e d t h a t h e had no

o b j e c t i o n t o Randono and h i s f r i e n d s s t a y i n g a t t h e c a b i n and

t h a t he allowed them t o s t a y t h e r e because:

"A. *** I f i g u r e d it e a s i e r t o n o t s t i r them up
and cause problems and I d i d n ' t want t o a l e r t them
t o t h e f a c t t h a t I had m mind up ( s i c ) I was going
y
t o accumulate t h i s ground."

During t h e time p e r i o d involved Ralph Randono an a t t o r n e y

who was a l s o a l i s t e d o f f i c e r of t h e family c o r p o r a t i o n , t e s t i f i e d

h e v i s i t e d t h e l a n d involved on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s and was n e v e r

t o l d by t h e M a r t i n s t h e y were c l a i m i n g t h e l a n d . He stopped i n

L i n c o l n on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s t o s e e t h e M a r t i n s and i t was

always a f r i e n d l y r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e y always had c o f f e e brewing.

I n A p r i l 1971, some t h r e e months a f t e r Don Martin p a i d t h e

t a x e s and had taken an assignment, Ralph Randono l i s t e d t h e

p r o p e r t y w i t h S o r r e l l R e a l t y Co. of G r e a t F a l l s . He took t h e

r e a l t o r on t h e l a n d , showed him t h e b o u n d a r i e s and Don Martin

did nothing. L a t e r i n 1971, Ralph Randono, M r . S o r r e l l and a

p r o s p e c t i v e buyer went on t h e land.. and Don Martin d i d n o t h i n g .

During t h i s e n t i r e p e r i o d between 1964 and 1971 Ralph Randono

knew of no s i t u a t i o n t h a t would a l a r m him t h a t anyone was s e e k i n g

t h e p r o p e r t y by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n .

I n May 1972, W. A . Randono l e a r n e d Don Martin had t a k e n a

t a x assignment on t h e l a n d , and he t h e n redeemed t h e land by

paying a.11 t h e back t a x e s , t o g e t h e r w i t h i n t e r e s t and p e n a l t i e s .

S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e t a x redemption, W. A . Randono and a Missoula

land s p e c u l a t o r went on t h e land f o r t h e purpose of a r r a n g i n g

a s a l e t o the speculator. They were t h e n c o n f r o n t e d by Don Martin

who o r d e r e d them o f f t h e l a n d , claiming t h e l a n d was h i s .
 S e v e r a l months l a t e r Don Martin f i l e d a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n

claiming adverse possession under c l a i m of t i t l e . The Randono

family c o r p o r a t i o n c o u n t e r sued claiming damages f o r wrongful

withholding of p r o p e r t y and damages f o r t h e l o s t s a l e t o t h e

Missoula s p e c u l a t o r . The D i s t r i c t Court decreed t i t l e i n Don

Martin, and t h i s a p p e a l followed.

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i r claim t h e c o u r t was i n e r r o r i n

decreeing adverse p o s s e s s i o n , t h e Randonos a l s o c l a i m t h e c o u r t

should have g r a n t e d damages f o r wrongful. withholding of p r o p e r t y

and f o r t h e l o s t s a l e . The Martins concede they would be l i a b l e

f o r damages f o r wrongful withholding of p r o p e r t y were i t n o t f o r

t h e d e c r e e of adverse possession.

W conclude t h e Martins d i d n o t e s t a b l i s h adverse possession.
e

The Martins sought adverse possession under an occupancy

t h a t was a d m i t t e d l y p e r m i s s i v e , b u t which they c l a i m they converted

i n t o one t h a t was h o s t i l e . I n P r i c e v. Western L i f e Insurance Co.
513,
(19441, 115 Mont. 509,/514, 146 P.2d 165, t h i s Court recognized

t h a t one may convert a permissive p o s s e s s i o n i n t o a h o s t i l e one

but "I t o make i t s o t h e r e must be a r e p u d i a t i o n of t h e permissive

possession *** and t h e r e p u d i a t i o n must be brought home t o t h e

owner by a c t u a l n o t i c e * * *.'" I n P r i c e , we s t a t e d t h e burden

t o overcome permissive u s e , quoting w i t h approval from Lindokken

v. Paulson, (1937), 224 W i s . 470, 272 N.W. 453,455, t o be:

"'The law i s v e r y r i g i d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e
f a c t t h a t a permissive use i n t h e beginning can be
changed i n t o one which i s h o s t i l e and adverse only
by t h e most unequivocal conduct on t h e p a r t of t h e
u s e r . The r u l e i s t h a t t h e evidence of adverse
p o s s e s s i o n must be p o s i t i v e , must be s t r i c t l y con-
s t r u e d a g a i n s t t h e person claiming a p r e s c r i p t i v e
r i g h t , and t h a t every reasonable intendment should be
made i n favor of t h e t r u e owner. 1 1 1

Whether one i s seeking t o convert permissive possession

i n t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t o r i n t o one of o u t r i g h t ownership,
we s e e no d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e burden t h e c l a i m a n t must b e a r . Using

t h i s r u l e a s a y a r d s t k k t h e Martins have f a i l e d i n t h e i r burden.

The D i s t r i c t Court i n a d d i t i o n t o concluding t h a t t h e Martins

had f u l f i l l e d t h e requirements of p o s s e s s i o n f o r 5 y e a r s and

payment o f t a x e s , s e c t i o n 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947, held:

"* * * t h a t t h e i r possession has been a c t u a l , v i s i b l e ,
e x c l u s i v e , h o s t i l e and continuous f o r t h e f u l l p e r i o d
n e c e s s a r y t o c r e a t e a b a r under t h e s t a t u t e of l i m i t a -
t i o n s . 11

These requirements of s e c t i o n 93-2513 must be proven t o e s t a b l i s h

a c l a i m of adverse possession. Smith v. Duff, (1909), 39 Mont.

374,&P. 981; Ferguson v. Standley, (1931), 89 Mont. 489, 300

P. 245; Townsend v . Koukol, (1966), 148 Mont. 1, 416 P.2d 532.

To c o n v e r t t h e o r i g i n a l permissive possession i n t o one of

a h o s t i l e c l a i m t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e l i e d e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e s t a t e -

ment made by Martin when he claimed he r e f u s e d t o pay r e n t t o

Gene Randono and considered t h e land a s h i s own. Even assuming

t h i s s t a t e m e n t t o be t r u e , i t i s a t b e s t e q u i v o c a l , and c e r t a i n l y

cannot be construed t o be a statement of i n t e n t t o possess and

own t h e e n t i r e 22 a c r e s . The statement was: "I informed him I

would n o t [pay r e n t ] . I considered t h e ground a s mine." If

r e n t was requested from Martin i t could have been f o r t h e r e n t of

t h e p i e c e of land on which t h e t r a i l e r home was l o c a t e d . It i s

n o t c l e a r from t h i s testimony t h a t Martin a c t u a l l y made a s t a t e -

ment t o Gene Randono t h a t he was claiming ownership of t h e land.

F u r t h e r , t h e conduct and s t a t e m e n t s o f t h e Martins from 1965

through 1971, f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h e r e q u i s i t e elements o f

adverse possession. I t appears t h e Martins were r e l y i n g more on

t h e i r misconceived a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e law. To them p o s s e s s i o n ,

p l u s u l t i m a t e l y paying t h e back t a x e s f o r f i v e y e a r s , was s u f f i -

c i e n t t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r c l a i m t o adverse possession. That i s

n o t enough.

- 8 -
 While i t might be argued t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n was a c t u a l and

v i s i b l e , and perhaps even continuous, i t was n o t e x c l u s i v e and

hostile. Don M a r t i n ' s testimony demonstrates he d i d n o t o b j e c t

t o t h e Randonos coming o n t o t h e l a n d , l i v i n g i n t h e c a b i n s , and

g e n e r a l l y coming and going a s they pleased. H i s reason f o r n o t

o b j e c t i n g b e l i e s any i n t e n t t o t a k e t h e p r o p e r t y by t r u e adverse

possession. He t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t o b j e c t because he d i d

n o t want t o p u t t h e Randonos on n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t t o l a t e r

"accunulate t h i s ground." He f u r t h e r t e s t i f i e d he d i d n o t pay

t h e back t a x e s year by y e a r a s they accumulated because he d i d

n o t want t o put t h e Randonos on n o t i c e of h i s i n t e n t t o a c q u i r e

t h e land i n t h e f u t u r e . By t h e s e admissions t h e Martins c l e a r l y

f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t t h e i r p o s s e s s i o n was e x c l u s i v e and

hostile.

From t h e i n c e p t i o n of t h e f i r s t c l a i m of r i g h t t o t h e land

through t h e e n t i r e period r e q u i r e d f o r adverse p o s s e s s i o n , i t

was r e q u i r e d t h a t t h e M a r t i n s 1 conduct be continuously h o s t i l e

and e x c l u s i v e t o t h e t r u e owners. Here, t h e p o s s e s s i o n was

purposely n o n h o s t i l e and nonexclusive. I t i s axiomatic t h a t

adverse possession does n o t allow t h e p o s s e s s o r s t o mask t h e i r

conduct and a c q u i r e t h e land by h i d i n g t h e i r t r u e i n t e n t i o n s

from t h e owners of record.

Adverse possession under claim of t i t l e i s l i m i t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y

by s e c t i o n s 93-2510 and 93-2511, R.C.M. 1947. The t r i a l c o u r t

i n making i t s f i n d i n g s and conclusions d i d n o t determine i f t h e s e

s t a t u t e s had been f u l f i l l e d . S e c t i o n 93-2510 provides t h a t i f

t h e c l a i m i s n o t under a w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , judgment, o r d e c r e e

"* ** t h e land s o a c t u a l l y occupied, and no o t h e r ,
i s deemed t o have been h e l d adversely."

The companion s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 93-2511, f u r t h e r l i m i t s adverse

p o s s e s s i o n by providing t h a t where t h e c l a i m i s n o t under a
w r i t t e n i n s t r u m e n t , judgment, o r d e c r e e land i s deemed t o

have been possessed and occupied i n t h e following c a s e s only:

"1. Where i t has been p r o t e c t e d by a s u b s t a n t i a l
inclosure;

"2. Where i t h a s been u s u a l l y c u l t i v a t e d o r
improved ."
Here, i t appears t h e land a t one time was surrounded by a

fence on a l l s i d e s . However, d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d of t h e a l l e g e d

adverse p o s s e s s i o n , t h e fence and o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s on t h e p r o p e r t y

deteriorated significantly. A t t h e end of t h e a l l e g e d p r e s c r i p -

t i v e period a fence e x i s t e d only on one>si.de of t h e p r o p e r t y .

One of t h e c a b i n s was destroyed by f i r e and t h e o t h e r s t r u c t u r e s

were damaged by v a n d a l s , and t h i e v e s c a r r i e d o f f much of t h e

personal property within the buildings. The land was never

c u l t i v a t e d and t h e a l l e g e d improvements c o n s i s t e d of moving

s i x o r more c a r bodies ( i t was never e s t a b l i s h e d who owned t h e

c a r b o d i e s ) ; c u t t i n g and removing o f dead t r e e s n e a r t h e

t r a i l e r home; b u i l d i n g a driveway f o r e a s i e r a c c e s s t o t h e

t r a i l e r home; and, i n g e n e r a l , c l e a n i n g up t h e p l a c e . Suffice

i t t o s a y , t h i s evidence d i d n o t f u l f i l l t h e requirements o f

the statutes.

The Martins concede l i a b i l i t y f o r wrongful withholding

of t h e premises, i f t h e i r claim of adverse possession i s n o t

upheld. However, they maintain t h a t i n such event t h e c l a i m

of damages f o r l o s t p r o f i t s was n o t proven. Because t h e t r i a l

c o u r t upheld t h e c l a i m of adverse p o s s e s s i o n , i t d i d n o t make

f i n d i n g s o r conclusions on e i t h e r of t h e counterclaims.

Accordingly, t h e amount of damages f o r wrongful withholding must

s t i l l be determined by t h e t r i a l c o u r t and i t must a l s o e n t e r

f i n d i n g s and conclusions on t h e Randonos' counterclaim of damages

because of a l o s t s a l e .
 W r e v e r s e t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court and remand
e

t h i s cause f o r f u r t h e r proceedings c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h i s Opinion.

\&
d ( &
&
Chief J u s t i c e
- "..