NO. 14452
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
CARL B. CHAMBERLAIN and HERTHA A.
CHAMBERLAIN, husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,
L. E. EVANS et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: ~istrict Cburt of the Eighth ~udicialDistrict,
Honorable B. W. Thomas, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Stacey and Nye, Billings, Montana
Jerrold L. Nye argued, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and Matteucci, Great Falls,
Montana
Raymond F. Koby, Jr. argued, Great Falls, Montana
Submitted: February 6, 1979
Filed:
; - 1~33
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 C o u r t .
T h i s a c t i o n c o n c e r n s a farm l e a s e f i l e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t o f 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 o f Cascade.
Motions and b r i e f s w e r e s u b m i t t e d by b o t h p a r t i e s f o r sum-
mary judgment, and on J u n e 2 3 , 1978, summary judgment was
granted t o t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f s appeal.
I n A p r i l 1971, p l a i n t i f f Chamberlain l e a s e d from
d e f e n d a n t s L.E. and J o s e p h i n e Evans (Evans) 2 3 0 a c r e s o f
wheat l a n d n e a r Great F a l l s . The p e r t i n e n t p a r t s of t h e
l e a s e i n t h i s a c t i o n p r o v i d e d t h a t i t r a n t o November 1,
1971, and u n l e s s n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n w a s g i v e n by e i t h e r
p a r t y , i t would be a u t o m a t i c a l l y renewed f o r e a c h s u c c e e d i n g
year.
T e r m i n a t i o n c o u l d b e made i n two ways. I n t h e event
Evans s o l d a l l o r p a r t of t h e l a n d , t h e l e a s e would t e r m i -
n a t e i m m e d i a t e l y a s t o t h e p a r t s o l d and Chamberlain would
become e n t i t l e d t o c e r t a i n payments. The lease c o u l d a l s o
b e t e r m i n a t e d by nonrenewal, i f n o t i c e o f nonrenewal w a s
g i v e n by e i t h e r p a r t y a t l e a s t 6 0 d a y s p r i o r t o t h e r e n e w a l
d a t e of t h e l e a s e .
The lease c o n t i n u e d u n t i l A p r i l 1974 t h r o u g h a u t o m a t i c
renewal. On o r a b o u t A p r i l 1, 1974, however, Chamberlain
r e c e i v e d from Evans a n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e l e a s e .
The n o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t t h e r e a s o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n w a s due t o
s a l e o f p a r t of t h e l e a s e d p r e m i s e s making f u r t h e r f a r m i n g
inconvenient. The n o t i c e a l s o d i r e c t e d Chamberlain t o do no
summerfallow o r t o p l a n t any of t h e l a n d .
Evans t h e r e a f t e r e n t e r e d i n t o a c o n t r a c t w i t h illi ion-
Moore, I n c . , t o come o n t o t h e l a n d i n t h e s p r i n g and summer
o f 1974 t o work t h e l e a s e d p r e m i s e s and t o p l a n t i t t o
wheat. The l a n d under l e a s e was n o t s o l d . Because o f
Killion-Moore's o p e r a t i o n s , however, Chamberlain c e a s e d
farming t h e leased land.
The i s s u e ( s ) on a p p e a l a r e d i s p u t e d by t h e p a r t i e s .
Because t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t e d Evans summary judgment,
t h e i s s u e a s d e f i n e d by him i s p r o b a b l y more c o r r e c t l y
stated:
Whether t h e r e was a n i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , t h e
e x i s t e n c e of which would p r e c l u d e summary judgment, and i f
n o t , whether t h e movant s h o u l d p r e v a i l a s a m a t t e r of law?
Chamberlain more c i r c u i t u o u s l y s t a t e s t h e i s s u e s a s :
1. Whether a n a d m i t t e d i n t e r f e r e n c e by Evans w i t h
C h a m b e r l a i n ' s r i g h t s t o t h e e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n and q u i e t
enjoyment o f t h e l e a s e h o l d d u r i n g t h e t e r m of t h e l e a s e g a v e
r i s e t o f a c t u a l and l e g a l q u e s t i o n s of damages?
2. Whether t h e n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n which s t a t e d a n
u n t r u e r e a s o n f o r t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e l e a s e i n a n a t t e m p t t o
d e p r i v e Chamberlain of h i s t e r m i n a t i o n r i g h t s was f r a u d o n
the plaintiffs?
Both p a r t i e s moved f o r summary judgment i n t h e c o u r t
below. The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e a d s i n p e r t i n e n t
part:
. . . i t appearing t o t h e Court t h a t , a s t o
l a i n t i f f s ' motion t h e r e remain g e n u i n e i s s u e s
f m a t e r i a l f a c t on q u e s t i o n s of l i a b i l i t y , b u t
t h a t as t o d e f e n d a n t s ' motion, t h e r e i s no gen-
u i n e i s s u e of any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t d e f e n -
d a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o judgment as a m a t t e r o f
law,
" I t i s , t h e r e f o r e , h e r e b y ORDERED t h a t p l a i n t i f f s '
motion f o r p a r t i a l summary judgment b e and i t i s
h e r e b y d e n i e d , and t h a t d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r
summary judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r b e and i t i s
hereby granted."
Chamberlain c a n b r i n g no c h a l l e n g e t o t h a t p a r t of t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r d e n y i n g him p a r t i a l summary judgment.
A l a r g e p a r t of h i s o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t and b r i e f on a p p e a l
i s d e v o t e d t o a d i s c u s s i o n of how Evans a l l e g e d l y f r a u d u -
l e n t l y terminated t h e lease. By s t a t u t e , f r a u d i s a l w a y s a
q u e s t i o n of f a c t . S e c t i o n 13-310, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n
28-2-404 MCA. T h e r e f o r e , Chamberlain h i m s e l f w a s n o t
e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d g r a n t Evans' motion f o r summary
judgment, however. On r e v i e w , t h i s C o u r t must merely d e t e r -
mine whether t h e r e e x i s t s a g e n u i n e i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t
and whether t h e moving p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a judgment as a
m a t t e r of l a w . Rule 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P.
The t e r m i n a t i o n p r o v i s i o n of t h e lease r e a d s :
"2. TERM OF LEASE: T h i s agreement s h a l l be f o r
a t e r m commencing on t h e d a t e h e r e o f and ter-
m i n a t i n g o n November 1, 1971, PROVIDED HOWEVER,
t h a t t h i s agreement s h a l l b e renewed a u t o m a t i c a l l y
from y e a r t o y e a r f o r o n e y e a r terms commencing
November 1st of e a c h y e a r and t e r m i n a t i n g on
November 1st of t h e n e x t y e a r , u n l e s s o n e p a r t y
g i v e t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n o f
t h e s a m e a t least s i x t y (60) days p r i o r t o t h e
t e r m i n a t i o n d a t e i n any g i v e n y e a r , i n which e v e n t
t h i s agreement s h a l l t e r m i n a t e November 1st f o l -
lowing t h e g i v i n g o f n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n . "
The n o t i c e o f t e r m i n a t i o n s e n t t o Chamberlain by Evans
stated:
"NOTICE of TERMINATION o f F R LEASE CONTRACT
AM
between L. E . Evans and J o s e p h i n e Evans (Owners)
and C a r l V . Chamberlain and H e r t h a A. Chamberlain
(Operators).
"Due t o t h e s a l e o f a c r e a g e on t h i s farm and s e l l -
i n g o f a c r e a g e i n v a r i o u s p a r t s o f t h i s farm makes
i t v e r y i n c o n v e n i e n t t o farm. T h e r e f o r e , a s o f
A p r i l 1, 1974, t h e O p e r a t o r s a r e t o do no s p r i n g
p l a n t i n g o r summerfallowing e x c e p t f o r r e s e e d i n g
i n s p o t s o n w i n t e r wheat.
"The O p e r a t o r s w i l l h a r v e s t t h e w i n t e r wheat c r o p
now i n , a s s p e c i f i e d i n t h e C o n t r a c t . "
I t i s c l e a r from t h e t e r m i n a t i o n p r o v i s i o n t h a t n e i t h e r
p a r t y w a s r e q u i r e d t o s t a t e any r e a s o n f o r t h e t e r m i n a t i o n
a s l o n g a s n o t i c e of t h e t e r m i n a t i o n was g i v e n s i x t y d a y s
p r i o r t o t h e November 1 t e r m i n a t i o n d a t e i n any y e a r . Evans
g a v e (and Chamberlain r e c e i v e d ) t h i s n o t i c e on o r a b o u t
A p r i l 1, a f u l l s e v e n months b e f o r e t h e s p e c i f i e d t e r m i n a -
tion date. T h i s n o t i c e complied f u l l y w i t h t h e l e t t e r and
s p i r i t of t h e lease. Chamberlain a p p a r e n t l y r e c o g n i z e d t h i s
f a c t and d i d n o t a t t e m p t t o t a l k t o Evans a b o u t t h e matter
a f t e r A p r i l 1. I n s u c h c i r c u m s t a n c e s , any c l a i m by Chamber-
l a i n t h a t Evans f r a u d u l e n t l y s t a t e d t h e r e a s o n s f o r t e r m i n a -
t i n g t h e lease are g r o u n d l e s s f o r t h e s i m p l e r e a s o n t h a t
Evans was n o t r e q u i r e d t o s t a t e any r e a s o n a t a l l f o r t e r m i n a -
t i n g t h e lease. S e e Shanahan v . U n i v e r s a l Tavern Corp.
(1978) 1 - Mont. , 585 P.2d 1314, 1317, 35 S t - R e p . 1585,
1589. Evans f o l l o w e d t h e t e r m s o f t h e lease i n t e r m i n a t i n g
i t and i s now e n t i t l e d t o summary judgment as a matter of
law.
Chamberlain's claim i n h i s o r i g i n a l complaint t h a t he
i s e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e o f t h e 1975 c r o p i s a l s o g r o u n d l e s s .
S e c t i o n s 67-702, -703, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-26-206,
MCA. H e n e i t h e r planted, c u l t i v a t e d , nor harvested these
crops. I n any e v e n t , w e have s t a t e d under v e r y s i m i l a r
circumstances:
"The r e c o r d i s c l e a r t h a t p l a i n t i f f knew when h e
a c c e p t e d t h e t e r m s o f October 2 , 1961, t h a t h i s
t e r m ended November 1, 1962. A s a matter of f a c t
h e b r o u g h t t h i s a c t i o n on May 1 5 , 1962, even be-
f o r e t h e t i m e f o r summer-fallow. Treating the
m a t t e r i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o p l a i n t i f f ,
t h a t a lease f o r o n e y e a r e x i s t e d b e c a u s e of t h e
l e t t e r of September 27, and t h e addendum of Oc-
t o b e r 2, t h e t e r m s a r e p l a i n , and under s u c h
c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e i s no b a s i s f o r any t h e o r y o f
'away g o i n g ' c r o p .
" I n H a l l v . H i l l i n g , s u p r a , t h e r u l e i s announced
t h a t when a l e a s e , e x p r e s s l y o r by i m p l i c a t i o n ,
r e c o g n i z e s t h e r i g h t of a t e n a n t t o sow i n t h e
l a s t y e a r of h i s t e r m , t h e t e n a n t h a s a r i g h t t o
h a r v e s t t h e away-going c r o p a t t h e e x p i r a t i o n of
h i s l e a s e , where t h e lease i s s i l e n t a s t o who i s
e n t i t l e d t o t h e crop. This general proposition
d o e s n o t a i d a p p e l l a n t , s i n c e as we have p r e v i -
o u s l y d i s c u s s e d , under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e ,
t h e v e r y b a s i s f o r h i s l e a s e r i g h t , whether i t
was a l e a s e a t w i l l o r f o r one-year p e r i o d , was
t o the contrary. The o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s a r e e i t h e r
n o t i n p o i n t o r support our holding here.
"Summarizing t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s h e r e , t h e a p p e l l a n t
knew when h e a c c e p t e d t h e t e r m s o f -e l a s t l e a s e
--- - th -
t h a t h i s t e r m ended November - -
--- 1, 1962. H e - - i t
- knew
would -t-e e x t e n d e d .
no b The l e a s e d i d n o t r e q u i r e
him t o do any summer-fallowing i n 1962, and i f
h e c h o s e t o do any t h a t he would b e p a i d .
"Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was
correct . . ." Johnson v. Anderson Ranch Co.
( 1 9 6 3 ) , 142 Mont. 251, 254-55, 384 P.2d 271, 272-
73. (Emphasis added. )
I n f a c t , t o a c c e p t C h a m b e r l a i n ' s t h e o r y of t h e c a s e
would b e t o r e q u i r e i n e f f e c t a o n e y e a r and s i x t y day
n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n p e r i o d b e c a u s e t h e t e n a n t would a l w a y s
be e n t i t l e d t o t h e crops harvested t h e year following h i s
r e c e i p t of n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n . This c l e a r l y contravenes
t h e l e a s e provisions.
F i n a l l y , f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , Chamberlain
a s s e r t s t h a t h i s c l a i m a l l a l o n g h a s been f o r b r e a c h of h i s
r i g h t t o q u i e t enjoyment of t h e l e a s e d p r e m i s e s . The r e c o r d
does n o t support t h i s a s s e r t i o n . I n t h e main p a r a g r a p h and
p r a y e r o f h i s c o m p l a i n t , Chamberlain s t a t e d :
" 2 . T h a t , o n o r a b o u t March 27, 1974, Defendants
g a v e n o t i c e of t e r m i n a t i o n o f lease a l l e g i n g s a l e
and u s e a s a n i n d u s t r i a l p a r k , made i t i n c o n v e n i e n t
t o farm. T h a t P l a i n t i f f s r e l i e d upon Defendants
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s and c e a s e d t o f a r m , a l t h o u g h under
s a i d l e a s e , t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o summerfallow and
farm t h e a g r i c u l t u r a l ground f o r 1975. T h a t t h e
r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s of Defendants were f a l s e and f r a u d u -
l e n t and made f o r t h e p u r p o s e of d e c e i v i n g P l a i n -
t i f f s , with t h e i n t e n t t h a t P l a i n t i f f s r e l y thereon
t o t h e i r d e t r i m e n t . P l a i n t i f f s r e l i e d t h e r e o n and
s u f f e r e d d e t r i m e n t i n t h e l o s s o f t h e i r 1975 c r o p
s h a r e . That t h e reasonable v a l u e of P l a i n t i f f s '
s h a r e o f t h e 1975 c r o p i s t h e sum of TWENTY SEVEN
THOUSAND SIX H N R D AND N0/100 DOLLARS ( $ 2 7 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 ) .
U DE
"WHEREFORE, P l a i n t i f f s p r a y judgment a s f o l l o w s :
" 1 . For TWENTY SEVEN THOUSAND SIX H N R D AND
U DE
N0/100 DOLLARS ($27,600.00) " .
T h a t t h i s s t a t e s t h e o r i e s of r e c o v e r y based on f r a u d o r
on e n t i t l e m e n t t o a n "away-going" crop share i s supportable;
t h a t i t s t a t e s a t h e o r y o f b r e a c h o f q u i e t enjoyment i s n o t .
I t h a s l o n g been t h e r u l e t h a t a p a r t y may n o t change
h i s t h e o r y on a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t from t h a t advanced i n t h e
t r i a l court:
"Under t h e well-known r u l e c o u n s e l o u g h t n o t now
t o p r e s e n t a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r y from t h a t upon
which h e t r i e d t h e c a s e i n t h e c o u r t below. 'The
r u l e i s s e t t l e d i n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t when a
p a r t y h a s a d o p t e d o n e t h e o r y upon t h e t r i a l of h i s
c a s e he may n o t change t h e t h e o r y on a p p e a l . (Gay
v . Lavina S t a t e Bank, 6 1 Mont. 449, 1 8 A.L.R. 1204,
202 Pac. 7 5 3 . ) ' (O'Hanlon v . Ruby Gulch M. Co.,
64 Mont. 318, 209 Pac. 1062; P a t t e r s o n v . Law,
78 Mont. 221, 254 Pac. 412.)" United S t a t e s Build-
i n g & Loan A s s ' n v . Burns ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 90 Mont. 402,
420, 4 P.2d 703, 707.
Accord, W i l l i a r d v. Campbell ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 91 Mont. 493, 503, 11
Even i f w e assume t h a t C h a m b e r l a i n ' s c l a i m a l l a l o n g
h a s been f o r b r e a c h o f q u i e t enjoyment, he would s t i l l have
no c l a i m f o r r e l i e f a s t h e r e was no b r e a c h . Chamberlain
would b e e n t i t l e d t o a s h a r e o f t h e 1974 c r o p h a r v e s t e d
b e f o r e t h e end o f t h e l e a s e . A s i n d i c a t e d by t h e t e r m i -
n a t i o n n o t i c e and t h e r e c o r d , t h i s i s e x a c t l y what he d i d
receive. Nothing Evans o r Killion-Moore d i d i n 1974 i n t e r -
f e r e d with Chamberlain's r i g h t t o h a r v e s t t h i s crop. Chamber-
l a i n ' s f l a t a s s e r t i o n t h a t h e i s e n t i t l e d t o some b r o a d e r
d e g r e e o f p o s s e s s i o n o f t h i s farm l a n d when h e would n o t be
e n t i t l e d t o any of t h e f r u i t s of t h e l a n d h a r v e s t e d a f t e r
t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e lease i s i n s u f f i c i e n t grounds on
which t o deny Evans' motion f o r summary judgment.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
,' Justice
/
'
We concur: