Larry C. Iverson, Inc. v. Bouma

No. 80-83 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE O MONTANA F 1981 LARRY C . IVERSON, I N C . , a Montana C o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f , Respondent and Cross-Appellant, VS . RALPH BOUMA and MRS. RALPH BOUMA, D e f e n d a n t s and A p p e l l a n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f P o n d e r a H o n o r a b l e Leonard H. Langen, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f Record: For Appellants: G a l e R. G u s t a f s o n a r g u e d , C o n r a d , Montana For Respondents: Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg and M a t t e u c c i , Great F a l l s , Montana Raymond F. Koby a r g u e d , Great F a l l s , Montana Church, H a r r i s , J o h n s o n and W i l l i a m s , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana C r e s a p S. McCracken a r g u e d , G r e a t F a l l s , Montana Submitted: September 1 6 , 1 9 8 1 Decided: ]UOV 1 7 19fll Mr. Justice Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. On December 10, 1971, the receiver commenced this action in the Ninth Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for the County of Pondera, for the purpose of obtaining a decree adjudging documents comprising an installment contract naming Larry C. Iverson, Inc., as seller, and Ralph Bouma, as purchaser, to be invalid, to regain possession of and quiet title to the 4,520 acres of farmland embraced in the contract, together with appropriate ancillary relief including an accounting by the Boumas. In August 1978, plaintiff and the receiver joined in a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the Bouma contract was void as a matter of law. On September 25, 1979, the motion for summary judgment came on for hearing before the then presiding district judge, the Honorable Leonard H. Langen, who granted the motion for summary judg- ment. The court reporter's notes containing the order as announced from the bench were discovered missing following a break-in of her automobile before the notes were tran- scribed. Consequently, Judge Langen prepared and filed a "Memorandum in Lieu of Transcript of Hearing" in October 1979. On November 30, 1979, a formal summary judgment for plaintiff was entered which adjudged the Bouna contract void and ordered the Boumas to account for the money, rents, issues and profits derived from possession of the farm. Boumas filed their accounting on February 21, 1980. Hearing on the accounting was held May 12 through 14, 1980. On September 9, 1980, the court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment and decree on accounting, setting forth all of the respective adjustments found by the c o u r t t o be a p p r o p r i a t e between t h e p a r t i e s in conjunction w i t h r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e f a r m t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . In February 1980, following entry of the summary judgment f o r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and d e n i a l o f Boumas' m o t i o n s , t h e Boumas f i l e d a n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s C o u r t . Boumas r e q u e s t e d a n o r d e r d e f e r r i n g p r o s e c u t i o n o f t h e a p p e a l , and this r e q u e s t was granted in an o r d e r of t h i s Court dated February 2 9, 1980, deferring prosecution u n t i l t h i r t y days a f t e r t h e c o n c l u s i o n of t h e a c c o u n t i n g and f i n a l a d j u s t m e n t and s e t t l e m e n t o f a c c o u n t s by n o t i c e of e n t r y by t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t of t h e f i n a l o r d e r or judgment. N o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment w h given by t h e c l e r k o f c o u r t S e p t e m b e r 1 0 , 1 9 8 0 , ana t h i s a p p e a l followed. To f u l l y comprehend t h e nature of t h i s case, it is n e c e s s a r y t o i n c l u d e a h i s t o r y of t h e f a c t s and p r o c e d u r e s . This matter began when the Larry C. Iverson Corporation, hereinafter called "the corporation," was incorporated on July 17, 1964. The c o r p o r a t i o n is a Montana corporation w i t h i t s p r i n c i p a l p l a c e o f b u s i n e s s a t L e d g e r , Montana. It was c a p i t a l i z e d f o r $ 5 0 0 , 0 0 0 d i v i d e d i n t o 5 , 0 0 0 s h a r e s o f a single c l a s s of common s t o c k of $100 p a r value. It was organized to be governed in its business by a board of directors of three persons empowered to elect officers to perform t h e e x e c u t i v e f u n c t i o n s of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . On A u g u s t 1 9 , 1 9 6 4 , a t o t a l o f 2 , 5 2 3 s h a r e s o f s t o c k of the corporation were issued to the following named persons i n c e r t i f i c a t e s a s follows: Stockholder Cert. # No. o f Shares Larry C. Iverson L i n d a M. I v e r s o n Mabel I v e r s o n Mabel Iverson Irene A. Keierleber Gilbert F. Keierleber Connie Iverson Fulton Darrell L. Brown Carl 0 . Iverson Carl 0 . Iverson Total Shares 2,523 Further, on November 22, 1965, the following certificates were issued to replace lost certificates representing shares in the corporation: Issued to No. of Stockholder Cert. No. Replace Shares Irene A. Keierleber 11 5 300 Mabel Iverson 12 3 58 Carl 0 . lverson 13 10 60 In December 1964, Carl and Mabel Iverson and Gilbert and Irene Keierleber hired J. Milton Krull and John C. Treadaway as business managers for the corporation. Krull and Treadaway continued as business managers, consultants, purported officers, directors and stockholders of the corporation until it went into receivership in November 1970. In the receiver action it was adjudged that Krull and Treadaway were corporate usurpers, and they were "stripped" of their titles and any interest they "did not" have. Soon thereafter, the stockholders of the corporation came upon hard times and by March 16, 1967, Farmers State Bank of Conrad had become the owner of 450 shares of Mabel Iverson's stock (of the original issue) and 450 shares of Carl Iverson's stock (of the original issue). Farmers State Bank acquired the ownership as a result of a pledge of the shares by Carl and Mabel on which the bank eventually had to foreclose. Also, as a result of this foreclosure, the corporation was able to redeem as treasury stock and become the equitable owner of 182.7 shares of the 900 shares now owned by F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank. P r i o r t o t h e a b o v e f o r e c l o s u r e , on J u l y 2 1 , 1 9 6 6 , i n H e l e n a , Montana, U n i t e d Bank o f P u e b l o purchased, a t a s h e r i f f ' s s a l e , 118 s h a r e s o f s t o c k of the c o r p o r a t i o n t h e n owned by C a r l and Mabel I v e r s o n . The o t h e r major s t o c k h o l d e r s a l s o f e l l on bad times. Gilbert and Irene Keierleber were adjudicated bankrupt on January 24, 1966. As a result, the trustee i n bankruptcy, Stanley M. Swaine, became the owner of the Keierlebers' stock--that i s , S t a n l e y M. Swaine, a s t r u s t e e i n bankruptcy of t h e e s t a t e of Irene Keierleber, became t h e owner o f 300 s h a r e s of s t o c k , a n d , a s t r u s t e e i n b a n k r u p t c y of t h e e s t a t e oi Gilbert Keierleber, he became the owner of 300 more s h a r e s s u b j e c t t o a p l e d g e t o F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank. As a r e s u l t of t h e above e v e n t s , t h e c o r p o r a t i o n by Narch 1 6 , 1 9 6 7 , was "owned" by a l m o s t a c o m p l e t e l y new s e t of s h a r e h o l d e r s . The o w n e r s h i p was a s f o l l o w s : Stockholder Shares UNITED BANK OF PUEBLO 118 C O N N I E IVERSON FULTON 440 ( S u b j e c t t o pledge t o t h e United Bank o f P u e b l o f o r t h e p u r c h a s e p r i c e a t p a r v a l u e o f $100 p e r s h a r e ) FARMERS STATE BANK OF CONRAD 7 17 STANLEY M . SWAINE, a s t r u s t e e i n 300 bankruptcy of t h e e s t a t e of Irene Keierleber STANLEY M . SWAINE, a s t r u s t e e i n b a n k r u p t c y of t h e e s t a t e of Gilbert Keierleber (subect t o a p l e d g e t o t h e F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank of Conrad) LARRY C .IVERSON, I N C . , (as treasury stock) 'Total 2,523 F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank, t h e t r u s t e e and U n i t e d Bank had a l l made demands upon t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , K r u l l and Treadaway for issuance of stock certificates to them, but these demands w e r e r e f u s e d . This resulted i n s t a t e court actions, Nos. 8 2 2 1 a n d 8073 r e s p e c t i v e l y , i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e Ninth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Pondera County, t o q u i e t t i t l e t o t h e o w n e r s h i p of t h e s t o c k . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o u n d f o r t h e F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank, the trustee and United Bank and awarded them t i t l e on A p r i l 7 , 1 9 7 1 . It is necessary a t t h i s j u n c t u r e t o include s e v e r a l f a c t u a l e v e n t s t r a n s p i r i n g p r i o r t o t h e s a l e of 4,520 a c r e s of farmland from the corporation to the defendants- a p p e l l a n t s Bouma i n J u l y 1 9 6 8 . From t h e f i n d i n g s o f fact and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w o f Cause Nos. 8 2 2 1 and 8 0 7 3 , i t was found t h a t a p u r p o r t e d m e e t i n g of s t o c k h o l d e r s was h e l d i n P h o e n i x , A r i z o n a , on November 2 2 , 1 9 6 5 , which r e s u l t e d - i n a s e c o n d i s s u e o f s t o c k t o be d i s t r i b u t e d on J a n u a r y 3 , 1 9 6 6 . However, i t was f o u n d t h a t n o t o n l y was t h e m e e t i n g i m p r o p e r b u t t h a t no c o m p e n s a t i o n was g i v e n t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f o r the stock issued and the amount of stock issued was in e x c e s s o f t h a t a u t h o r i z e d by t h e a r t i c l e s o f i n c o r p o r a t i o n . T h e r e was a n o t h e r " e v e n t " which t o o k p l a c e i n J a n u a r y 1967 and was d i s c u s s e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . This "eventt' was a n o t h e r i m p r o p e r s h a r e h o l d e r m e e t i n g i n D i l l o n , Montana. At t h i s meeting, a t t e n d e d o n l y by C a r l I v e r s o n , K r u l l and Treadaway, i t was d e c i d e d t o c a n c e l a l l t h e s h a r e s o f the s e c o n d i s s u e and t o a u t h o r i z e a t h i r d i s s u e . No c o n s i d e r a - t i o n was g i v e n f o r t h e 2,595 s h a r e s "created," and 2,477 s h a r e s were " g i v e n " t o K r u l l and Treadaway. I t is i m p o r t a n t t o n o t e t h a t a t t h e t i m e o f t h i s m e e t i n g a t l e a s t 600 s h a r e s of the originally issued stock was "equitably" owned by Stanley Swaine, as trustee in bankruptcy for the Keierlebers. A l t h o u g h t h e r e w e r e numerous e v e n t s t r a n s p i r i n g a f t e r incorporation in 1964 t h a t well illustrate t h e manner in w h i c h t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was mismanaged, s u f f i c e i t t o s a y t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t i n q u e s t i o n h e r e was t h e f o u n t a i n h e a d . In July 1968 t h e c o r p o r a t i o n p u r p o r t e d t o s e l l 4,520 a c r e s of land t o R a l p h Bouma on a c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d f o r a p u r c h a s e p r i c e of $734,500. The v a l i d i t y o f the s a l e of land to Ralph Bouma ( h e r e i n a f t e r c a l l e d t h e Bouma c o n t r a c t ) i s t h e u n d e r - l y i n g i s s u e of t h i s appeal. Again, a h i s t o r y of t h e c o n t r a c t negotiations, terms, results, etc., is necessary t o provide a c l e a r u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i s s u e a t hand. I t is important t o k e e p i n mind, while reading the following factual sum- mary, that 76 p e r c e n t of the corporation was "owned" by F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank of Conrad, United Bank o f Pueblo, and S t a n l e y Swaine, t r u s t e e i n bankruptcy f o r the Keierlebers, a t l e a s t a y e a r b e f o r e t h e Bouma c o n t r a c t . I n J u l y 1968 a p p r o x i m a t e l y 4 , 5 0 0 a c r e s o f l a n d o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was s o l d t o R a l p h Bouma on a c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d for a purchase price of $734,500. Bouma made a partial downpayment to the corporation in the form of a t r a d e of 1,440 acres of land located in Teton County (hereinafter c a l l e d t h e Agawam p l a c e ) a t a n a l l o w a n c e o f $150 p e r a c r e . Though n o t i m m e d i a t e l y r e l e v a n t , i t was f o u n d from t h e D i s - t r i c t Court's f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law t h a t s i x weeks a f t e r the sale, t h e Agawam p l a c e was resold by Krull and Treadaway, acting for the corporation, to the f a t h e r and b r o t h e r s o f R a l p h Bouma a t a p r i c e o f $ 9 2 . 5 0 p e r acre, resulting in a l o s s of $82,800 to the corporation. Also, the father and brothers sold the Agawam place one year later at $120 per acre. The sale of the corporate farm occurred during a purported directors meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, on July 19, 1968. The parties involved at the meeting were Treadaway, Krull and Carl and Mabel Iverson. There were no other shareholders at the meeting, and there is no record of any notice having been given to any of the shareholders about the meeting. Also, no publication of notice or filing of the resolution authorizing the sale was published in the local newspaper, and no filing of the certificate of pro- ceedings and no resolution authorizing sale was made with the Pondera County clerk and recorder. Further, no Montana attorney was retained during the transaction, no title investigation was undertaken, and the contract authorized payment of 44 percent of the unpaid installment balance of the contract directly to Krull and Treadaway. In 1968 Farmers State Bank and Stanley W. Swaine commenced a stockholders derivative action against the corporation and the persons controlling it (District Court Cause No. 8073). In 1969 United Bank of Pueblo commenced an action for similar relief and for corporate dissolution (Cause No. 8221). These actions were consolidated during trial and concluded in 1971 with the exception of continuing jurisdiction to govern the receivership of the corporation. George Campanella was appointed receiver pendente lite and his status as receiver was affirmed in the final judgment. The receiver then proceeded in 1971 against Bouma to recover the 4,520 acres of land which was originally the principal asset of the corporation. In February 1978, the Honorable B. W . Thomas granted a petition of the receiver for relief from his responsibilities in pursuing the re- covery of the acreage. The present stockholders reorganized the corporation under the directive of Judge Thomas and con- tinued the action (Cause No. 8509) as a partially reconsti- tuted corporation. It was not until September 25, 1979, that Judge Langen granted plaintiff-respondent's motion for summary judgment. In so doing he brought to an end some fifteen years of litigation involving the corporation which began with a receivership action by Farmers State Bank in 1965. In the summary judgment motion, Judge Langen held that, as a matter of law, the persons with whom Bouma dealt and from whom he obtained the Bouma contract--namely, Krull, Treadaway and the Iversons--were without lawful authority to contract in behalf of the corporation, and, therefore, the contract was void. The judge also found that Bouma knew, or should have known, that these purported officers of the cor- poration did not have the authority to authorize the sale. The court reporter's notes containing the order as announced from the bench on September 25, 1979, were dis- covered missing following a break-in of her automobile before they were transcribed. Judge Langen, therefore, prepared and filed a "Memorandum in Lieu of Transcript of Hearing'' in October 1979. On November 30, 1979, a formal summary judgment for plaintiff was entered which adjudged the Bouma contract void and ordered Boumas to account for the money, rents, issues and profits derived from possession of the Iverson farm. Appellants filed their accounting on February 21, 1980. B e a r i n g on t h e a c c o u n t i n g was h e l d May 12 t h r o u g h 1 4 , 1980. On S e p t e m b e r 9 , 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s o f f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w , judgment and d e c r e e on a c c o u n t - ing ( h e r e i n a f t e r "accounting d e c r e e " ) s e t t i n g f o r t h a l l of t h e r e s p e c t i v e a d j u s t m e n t s f o u n d by t h e c o u r t t o be a p p r o - pr i a t e between t h e p a r t i e s i n c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e I v e r s o n farm t o t h e c o r p o r a t i o n . In the accounting decree the Boumas were allowed credit for two-thirds of the crop harvested during the p e r i o d b e t w e e n t h e Bouma c o n t r a c t d a t e of A p r i l 1 7 , 1 9 6 8 , t o the date of the accounting hearing which closed May 14, 1980, together with interest on each annual crop from September 30 o f each year. As a result of this finding, Boumas were a l l o w e d c r o p s h a r e and i n t e r e s t t h e r e o n t o t a l i n g $819,321.08. In a prehearing brief filed by the corporation in A p r i l 1 9 8 0 , t h e c o r p o r a t i o n f u r n i s h e d a r g u m e n t and a u t h o r i t y t o the court in support of i t s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e Boumas s h o u l d be t r e a t e d a s " w i l l f u l trespassers" not entitled t o t h e f r u i t s of t h e i r wrongful occupation of t h e Iverson farm. The c o u r t d i s a g r e e d w i t h t h i s c o n t e n t i o n and made t h e c r o p h a r v e s t award a s p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d . I n its accounting decree, t h e c o u r t a l s o allowed t h e Boumas credit totaling $264,074 for the value of certain i m p r o v e m e n t s made t o t h e I v e r s o n f a r m , t o t h e e x t e n t o f t l i e enhanced v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y r e s u l t i n g from t h e improve- ments. That is a s f o l l o w s : Improvement P e r Cost or C r e d i t Court Accounting Decree Replacement Allowed Page 6 C o s t Per Bouma Bouma A c c t - T h r e e 7 , 5 0 0 bu. b i n s & s i x 2 2 , 0 0 0 bu. b i n s $106,352 $154,500 R e s t o r a t i o n of a c r e a g e 4,000 38,000 Totals $110,352 $192,500 The 7,500 b u s h e l b i n s were i n s t a l l e d i n 1975 and 1976 and t h e 22,000 b u s h e l b i n s i n 1 9 7 6 . The a c r e a g e r e s t o r a t i o n took p l a c e o v e r a p e r i o d of s i x o r s e v e n y e a r s . The e x c e s s a l l o w a n c e was awarded o v e r t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s o b j e c t i o n s t h a t t h e e n h a n c e d v a l u e s h o u l d be r e s t r i c t e d t o t h e c o s t t h e r e o f . The 1968 Bouma contract purported to convey the I v e r s o n f a r m , m i n e r a l s and a l l , t o t h e Boumas, l e s s a n "un- divided one-half interest in the landowner's oil and gas royalty interest which it now has." Later, for credit against his running account at $1 per acre, Ralph Bouma p r o c u r e d a " m i n e r a l d e e d " f r o m K r u l l and Treadaway p u r p o r t - i n g t o c o n v e y t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s m i n e r a l s on and u n d e r the Iverson farm to Bouma. When Bouma was shown to have received $34,748 i n o i l revenue from t h e I v e r s o n farm and c o u l d n o t r e l y upon t h e v o i d Bouma c o n t r a c t , he a s s e r t e d t h e revenue was his by virtue of the "mineral deed." Judge Langen r u l e d , o v e r t h e Boumas' o b j e c t i o n s , t h a t t h e c o r p o r a - t i o n was e n t i t l e d t o t h e o i l money w i t h interest. Boumas r a i s e d t h e i s s u e a g a i n i n t h e i r m o t i o n t o a l t e r o r amend t h e accounting decree. The trial judge reversed himself and deleted from credits awarded the corporation the sum of $41,215.46, being the $34,748 oil revenue with accrued interest. In February 1980, following entry of the summary judgment for the corporation and denial of Boumas' motions pursuant to Rules 52 and 59, M.R.Civ.P., the Boumas filed notice of appeal to this Court. Boumas requested an order deferring prosecution of the appeal, and this request was granted in an order of this Court dated February 29, 1980, deferring prosecution until thirty days after the conclusion of the accounting and final adjustment and settlement of accounts by notice of entry by the clerk of court of the final order of judgment. Notice of entry of judgment was given by the clerk of court September 10, 1980. In conclusion, the matters that now stand before this Court are the appeal by the Boumas of the District Court's ruling on summary judgment and the cross-appeal by the corporation on the District Court's accounting decree. Numerous issues have been presented to this Court for review by appellants Bouma. The nineteen issues set forth in appellants' brief can be summarized as follows: 1. Did the District Court err in holding that the disputed contract was void? 2. Were there genuine issues of material fact in the case which made summary judgment inappropriate? 3. Are any of the appellants' "defenses" sufficient to warrant reversal of the summary judgment ( e l (a) laches, (b) estoppel, (c) ratification, (d) statute of limitations, (e) etc.)? 4. Did the District Court err in substituting as plaintiff the partially reconstituted corporation in place of the plaintiff receiver while the corporation remained under receivership? The following issue is presented by cross-appellant Iverson, Inc: 1. Did the District Court err in its accounting decree? W note e at the outset of this opinion that Ralph Bouma, o n e o f t h e a p p e l l a n t s , h a s b e e n o b l i g e d i n e v e r y way. T h i s C o u r t h a s t r i e d t o be f a i r and i m p a r t i a l r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e f a c t t h a t Mr. Bouma h a s f a i l e d t o r e c i p r o c a t e . H e has p u b l i c l y a c c u s e d t h i s C o u r t and i t s i n d i v i d u a l j u s t i c e s o f c o n s p i r i n g a g a i n s t him and o f u s i n g t h e i r p o s i t i o n s t o h i s personal detriment. Mr. Bouma h a s e v e n g o n e s o f a r a s t o f i l e an a c t i o n i n F e d e r a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e j u s t i c e s of t h i s Court have v i o l a t e d h i s c i v i l r i g h t s . That is h i s r i g h t . However, Mr. Bouma d o e s n o t seem t o r e a l i z e t h e l a w c a n n o t b e , and w i l l n o t b e , d i s t o r t e d t o s a t i s f y t h e p e r s o n a l whims o f o n e man--for o u r s is a s y s t e m of l a w s , n o t men. From t h e f a c t s and a p p e l l a n t s ' contentions i t would seem t h a t t h i s c a s e p r e s e n t s numerous complex l e g a l i s s u e s requiring careful legal analysis. Actually, the only r e a l p r o b l e m is t r y i n g t o " f i n d " t h e i s s u e s t h r o u g h t h e d e l u g e o f i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l t h a t a p p e l l a n t s have p r e s e n t e d to this Court. T h i s a p p e a r s t o be t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' "style," a s they have continued over the years to inundate the opposing p a r t y , t h e l o w e r c o u r t and t h i s C o u r t w i t h reams o f u n n e c e s - s a r y papers, f i l e s and demands. One need o n l y t o r e a d t h i s C o u r t ' s comments t o w a r d a p p e l l a n t s i n two p r i o r m a t t e r s t o g r a s p t h e d e g r e e t o w h i c h t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a v e made a mockery of t h e a p p e l l a t e p r o c e s s . W were f i r s t i n t r o d u c e d t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s i n Farmers e S t a t e Bank o f Conrad v . Iverson, e t a l . , and Bouma ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 1 6 2 Mont. 130, 509 P.2d 839. T h i s Court found that the a p p e l l a n t s never even f i l e d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e papers seeking to intervene in a case in which they alleged they were entitled to be interested parties. The C o u r t said: "In a d d i t i o n w e m u s t comment on t h e ' b a c k d o o r ' a t t e m p t by p e t i - tioners and appellants [Boumas] to introduce extraneous e v i d e n c e i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s by a t t a c h i n g Appendix ' A , ' 'B' and 'C' to their brief on a p p e a l . " 509 P.2d a t 841. The Court added, "We s t r o n g l y condemn t h i s p r a c t i c e by c o u n s e l f o r a p p e l l a n t s and u s e t h i s o c c a s i o n t o warn o t h e r p a r t i e s t o f u t u r e a p p e a l s t h a t t h i s p r a c t i c e w i l l n o t be t o l e r a t e d . " The C o u r t dismissed the appeal as fgivolous and assessed &y$Q damages o f $ 1 , 0 0 0 u n d e r R u l e 3 2 , M.R.Civ.P., f o r b r i n g i n g an appeal without merit. In Campanella v. Bouma ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 214, 520 P.2d 1073, 1074, t h i s Court a g a i n noted t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s had filed motions unheard of in the law and set forth twenty-eight counts of error that were termed frivolous, impertinent, and i m m a t e r i a l . The C o u r t s t a t e d : "Specific instances shall go uncited at this time, however it is apparent t h a t i n t h e p a s t Mr. Bouma h a s u s e d his lack of r e p r e s e n t a t i o n t o h i s a d v a n t a g e i n t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s and h a s a l s o used t h e f a c t o f h i s w i f e ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n a l s o t o h i s advantage." 520 P.2d a t 1075. The C o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d : "In so ruling, the Court has attempted to retain its objectivity, continuing t o assume t h a t s u c h m o t i o n [motion f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n o f a p p e a r a n c e s ] was l e g i t i m a t e l y m o t i v a t e d , an exceedingly difficult task considering the motion is absurd i n nature, i r r e l e v a n t and s c a n d a l o u s i n c o n t e n t a n d vituperative i n tone." 520 P.2d at 1078. Finally, this C o u r t , w h i l e on t h e b r i n k o f h o l d i n g t h a t a p p e l l a n t s ' m o t i o n was c o n t e m p t u o u s , s t a t e d : " T h e r e i s no p l a c e i n o u r j u d i c i a l s y s t e m f o r s u c h a n u n d i g n i f i e d p r o d u c t e v e n i f a member o f t h e b a r had n o t l e n t h i s name t o i t . " 520 P.2d a t 1 0 7 8 . It is apparent t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s do n o t t a k e heed o f this Court's warnings b u t continue t o p r e s e n t frivolous, scan- dalous, burdensome, i n a n e and t o t a l l y i r r e l e v a n t m a t e r i a l s f o r review. I s s u e 1: Did t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e d i s p u t e d c o n t r a c t was v o i d ? The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s r u l i n g was b a s e d on o n l y o n e narrow i s s u e . T h i s i s s u e was t h e b a s i s f o r t h e g r a n t i n g o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n ' s summary judgment m o t i o n . Af t e r r e v i e w i n g the affidavits, depositions, documents, court decrees, orders and findings of fact and conclusions of law from c o n s o l i d a t e d c a u s e s 8221/8073, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was v o i d from t h e s t a r t . Though t h e r e may h a v e b e e n numerous m a t e r i a l s p r e s e n t e d to the court, t h e judge f o u n d t h a t t h e whole m a t t e r b o i l e d down t o t h e v a l i d i t y o f the contract. The c o u r t ' s finding that t h e c o n t r a c t was v o i d i s w e l l s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s a n d t h e l a w . From t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f law o f c a u s e s 8221/8073, i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n m e t o n l y t w i c e b e f o r e t h e Bouma c o n t r a c t was e n t e r e d i n t o . The f i r s t t i m e was on A u g u s t 1 9 , 1 9 6 4 , when t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was organized, and t h e s e c o n d t i m e w a s in Dillon, Montana, on J a n u a r y 30, 1967. The f i r s t m e e t i n g was a p r o p e r m e e t i n g , and it was a t t h i s m e e t i n g t h a t t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a t t e m p t e d t o a d o p t a bylaw t h a t may h a v e p r e v e n t e d the later contract from b e i n g v o i d . The b y l a w c o n t a i n e d t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i - sion: "The Board of D i r e c t o r s s h a l l h a v e t h e power and g e n e r a l authority to sell, lease, mortgage, exchange o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e of t h e whole o r a n y p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s of e v e r y k i n d and d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , f o r p r o p e r t y f o r t h e whole o r p a r t of t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k of any o t h e r corporation . . ." T h i s bylaw was n e v e r made e f f e c t i v e . S e c t i o n s 15-908 and 15-909, R.C.M. 1947, which were then in effect, required that, for t h i s type of bylaw t o be effective, it must be n o t i c e d and p u b l i s h e d i n a newspaper p r i n t e d i n t h e c o u n t y , a n d r e c o r d e d i n t h e o f f i c e o f t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r i n t h e same f a s h i o n a s s p e c i f i c a u t h o r i z a t i o n m e e t i n g s f o r the s a l e of substantially a l l of a corporation's assets. The a f f i d a v i t o f t h e p u b l i s h e r o f t h e l o c a l n e w s p a p e r , J a c k Lee, and the a f f i d a v i t of t h e county clerk and recorder, Gladys Mortenson, both establish that no notice was pub- l i s h e d and no f i l i n g o f t h e bylaw was made. S e c t i o n 15-908, R.C.M. 1947, provided i n p a r t : " S t o c k h o l d e r s may adopt by-law giving d i r e c t o r s power t o s e l l o r l e a s e p r o p e r t y o f corporation--limitations on w h i c h a u t h o r i t y . A t any m e e t i n g o f t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s o f a n y c o r p o r a t i o n c a l l e d and n o t i c e d i n t h e manner p r o v i d e d by t h i s c h a p t e r , t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s may . .. a d o p t a by-law g i v i n g t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s of such c o r p o r a t i o n such g e n e r a l a u t h o r it y t o s e l l , l e a s e , mortgage , exchange o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e o f t h e whole o r a n y p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s o f e v e r y k i n d and d e s c r i p t i o n of such c o r p o r a t i o n . . ." S e c t i o n 15-909, R.C.M. 1947, provided i n p a r t : "Same--contents of r e s o l u t i o n and n o t i c e . The r e s o l u t i o n c a l l i n g t h e m e e t i n g and t h e n o t i c e m a i l e d t o s t o c k h o l d e r s and p u b l i s h e d s h a l l s t a t e t h a t t h e meeting is c a l l e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a d o p t i o n of a by-law empowering t h e b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n t o s e l l , l e a s e , mortgage, e x c h a n g e , o r o t h e r w i s e d i s p o s e o f t h e whole o r a n y p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s o f e v e r y k i n d and d e s c r i p t i o n o f s u c h c o r p o r a - t i o n , f o r p r o p e r t y , o r f o r t h e whole o r p a r t of t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k o f a n y o t h e r c o r p o r a - t i o n , whether domestic or f o r e i g n , o r o t h e r - wise. I n a l l o t h e r r e s p e c t s n o t i c e s h a l l be g i v e n and t h e m e e t i n g s h a l l be had and a copy of t h e m i n u t e s t h e r e o f s h a l l be f i l e d a s p r o v i d e d by t h i s c h a p t e r . " Appellants cannot expect a court t o overlook a s t a t u t e t h a t is c l e a r i n its i n t e n t . There is further case l a w and encyclopedia law t o support the judge's ruling. In the c a s e of Hanrahan v . A n d e r s e n ( 1 9 3 9 ) , 1 0 8 Mont. 218, 90 P.2d 4 9 4 , 499, t h e C o u r t held: ". . . i t is e q u a l l y w e l l s e t t l e d i n t h e a b s e n c e of e x p r e s s s t a t u t e , t h a t i n t h e c a s e o f a s o l v e n t c o r p o r a t i o n w h i c h h a s accumu- l a t e d property for use i n its business, n e i t h e r t h e d i r e c t o r s , nor even t h e s t o c k - h o l d e r s e x c e p t by unanimous v o t e , h a v e t h e a u t h o r i t y t o dispose of such property except i n t h e f u r t h e r a n c e and i n t h e o r d i n a r y c o u r s e of t h e business; f o r otherwise the a u t h o r i t y i s b e i n g used t o d e f e a t , t o t h a t e x t e n t , t h e v e r y p u r p o s e f o r w h i c h t h e a u t h o r i t y was given. . ." Also, i n 19 C.J.S. C o r p o r a t i o n s , S 1240 a t 9 3 2 , i t i s f o u n d that: " S a l e s and a s s i g n m e n t s by c o r p o r a t i o n s , t o be v a l i d , m u s t be w i t h i n t h e c o r p o r a t e p o w e r s , made i n good f a i t h and i n conformity with governing charter or s t a t u t o r y regula- tions." The law i s c l e a r on t h i s p o i n t . I t is n o t p r o p e r f o r a corporation t o sell its property a s s e t s , in t h i s case the only real asset, without following the requisite statutes, u n l e s s t h e r e i s a bylaw p r o v i s i o n t h a t h a s been p r o p e r l y f i l e d and p u b l i s h e d t o a l l o w i t . F u r t h e r , f r o m t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w o f c a u s e s 8221/8073, i t was f o u n d t h a t t h e p a r t i e s who r e p r e s e n t e d t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a t t h e t i m e of t h e Bouma con- tract, August 1968, were w i t h o u t authority t o act for the corporation. Thus, t h e p e o p l e who p u r p o r t e d to represent the corporation lacked the capacity to contract. Worman Motor Co. v. H i l l (1939), 54 A r i z . 227, 94 P.2d 865; 17 C.J.S. Contracts, § 27 a t 6 3 0 . I t i s a l s o t o be o b s e r v e d , by way o f l i m i t a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e o f u l t r a v i r e s , t h a t a n a t t e m p t e d c o n v e y a n c e by the officers of a corporation of its property without a u t h o r i t y does n o t involve t h e d o c t r i n e of u l t r a v i r e s , b u t of agents to act on behalf of their principal without authority. 1 9 Am.Jur.2d 5 963 a t 441; H o t a l i n g v . H o t a l i n g (1924), 193 C a l . 368, 224 P. 455, 56 A.L.R. 734. In Hotaling, a board of d i r e c t o r s m e e t i n g was h e l d t o d e c i d e w h e t h e r c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n was t o be s o l d , and u n d e r t h e bylaws of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n a m a j o r i t y of the b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s was n e c e s s a r y t o a p p r o v e a p r o p e r t y s a l e . At t h e m e e t i n g o n l y two o f the f i v e d i r e c t o r s voted. The c o u r t r u l e d t h e c o n t r a c t v o i d and t h a t t h i s a c t was n o t a q u e s t i o n o f u l t r a v i r e s b u t of a g e n t s who a c t e d on b e h a l f o f a principal ( t h e corporation) without the a u t h o r i t y t o do SO. W i t h o u t t h e bylaw n e c e s s a r y t o p r o v i d e an e x c e p t i o n to the statutory rules, the "purported" directors were required t o follow s t r i c t s t a t u t o r y procedure to sell the farmland to the appellants. In pertinent part section 1 5 - 9 0 1 , R.C.M. 1947, a p p l i c a b l e a t t h e time of t h e c o n t r a c t , provided : "Procedure for sale, lease, etc., of corporate property--call of s t o c k h o l d e r s 1 meeting. The b o a r d o f d i r e c t o r s o r t r u s t e e s of any s t o c k c o r p o r a t i o n . . . s h a l l have p o w e r , and upon r e q u e s t o f s t o c k h o l d e r s r e p r e s e n t i n g a t l e a s t one-half ( 1 / 2 ) of t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k o u t s t a n d i n g and . . . entitled . . . t o vote a t t h e meeting h e r e i n a f t e r p r o v i d e d f o r , i t s h a l l be t h e i r d u t y t o c a l l by r e s o l u t i o n a m e e t i n g o f t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s of s u c h c o r p o r a t i o n , a p p e a r i n g a s s u c h upon i t s b o o k s , and e n t i t l e d t o v o t e a t s u c h meeting, a s a f o r e s a i d , f o r t h e purpose of c o n s i d e r i n g t h e q u e s t i o n of s e l l i n g , l e a s i n g , mortgaging, exchanging, or otherwise dis- p o s i n g of t h e whole o r a n y p a r t o f t h e p r o p e r t y and a s s e t s o f e v e r y k i n d and d e s - c r i p t i o n of such c o r p o r a t i o n , f o r p r o p e r t y , o r f o r t h e whole o r p a r t o f t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k of any o t h e r c o r p o r a t i o n , whether domestic o r foreign, or otherwise. Such m e e t i n g s h a l l be held a t t h e p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s of s u c h c o r p o r a t i o n , and a t l e a s t t h i r t y ( 3 0 ) d a y s p r e v i o u s n o t i c e o f t h e t i m e and p l a c e o f such meeting . . ." S e c t i o n 15-902, R.C.M. 1947, provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " N o t i c e of s t o c k h o l d e r s ' m e e t i n g - - c o n t e n t s - - mailing--publication. The s e c r e t a r y o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n s h a l l make o u t and d e p o s i t i n t h e United S t a t e s p o s t o f f i c e , postage p a i d , a n o t i c e of s u c h m e e t i n g , d i r e c t e d t o e a c h s t o c k h o l d e r of r e c o r d of t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , e n t i t l e d t o v o t e a t such meeting, a s afore- s a i d , by h i s name and h i s p l a c e o f r e s i d e n c e a p p e a r i n g on s a i d r e c o r d s , and s h a l l make and f i l e h i s a f f i d a v i t of such d e p o s i t . . . The n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e t h e t i m e , p l a c e and t h e p u r p o s e o f t h e m e e t i n g , and s h a l l c o n t a i n a c o m p l e t e and s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o - p o s a l t o be c o n s i d e r e d and a c t e d upon a t s a i d m e e t i n g , i n c l u d i n g i n a l l c a s e s where o n l y a p a r t of t h e p r o p e r t y of such c o r p o r a t i o n is a f f e c t e d , a g e n e r a l d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e prop- e r t y p r o p o s e d t o be s o l d , l e a s e d , m o r t g a g e d , exchanged, o r otherwise disposed o f . A s i m i l a r n o t i c e s h a l l a l s o be p u b l i s h e d a t l e a s t o n c e a week f o r a t l e a s t f o u r ( 4 ) con- s e c u t i v e weeks p r e c e d i n g t h e d a y o f s a i d m e e t i n g , i n some newspaper o f g e n e r a l c i r c u - l a t i o n published i n t h e county wherein t h e p r i n c i p a l p l a c e of b u s i n e s s of s u c h c o r p o r a - t i o n is l o c a t e d . . ." F u r t h e r , s e c t i o n 15-903, R.C.M. 1947, provided: " O r g a n i z a t i o n o f m e e t i n g - - v o t e on p r o p o s a l - - adoption of resolution. Upon t h e d a y appointed f o r s a i d meeting . . . i f stock- holders representing a t l e a s t two-thirds ( 2 / 3 ) o f t h e whole number o f s h a r e s o f t h e c a p i t a l s t o c k of s a i d c o r p o r a t i o n t h e n o u t s t a n d i n g , and o f r e c o r d on t h e b o o k s o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , and e n t i t l e d , a s a f o r e s a i d , t o vote a t such meeting, appearing a t s a i d m e e t i n g i n p e r s o n o r by a g e n t s o r p r o x i e s , a s above p r o v i d e d , v o t e i n f a v o r o f any such p r o p o s i t i o n , w h e t h e r p r o p o s e d by t h e d i r e c - t o r s or t r u s t e e s , or not, a s s a i d stock- holders may see fit, which proposition shall be in the form of a resolution specifying the particulars thereof and entered on the minutes of said stockholders' meeting, the said proposition or resolution shall be taken and adopted as the act of the corporation, and shall be carried out as such, and shall be approved and adopted by the board of directors or trustees." And, section 15-905, R.C.M. 1947, provided: "Secretary to enter result in minutes--copy thereof to be filed with county clerk of counties where corporation owns real estate. The secretary of such meeting shall enter upon the minutes of said stockholders meeting the total number of shares, and the number of shares of each class, voted for or against the proposition or resolution, and by whom voted, and stockholders voting against said proposition or resolution shall be taken as dissenting therefrom. Upon the adoption of any proposition or resolution such as above referred to, by the stockholders meeting, the secretary of the meeting shall make out a true and complete copy of the minutes of the stockholders' meeting, which shall be signed by the chairman of such meeting, and attested by said secretary and verified by them and acknowledged as required in the case of con- veyance of real estate, and shall file the same for record in the office of the county clerk and recorder of the county wherein the principal office or place of business of such corporation is situated, and also in the office of the county clerk and recorder of any other counties wherein any of the real property included in the proposition or resolution adopted by said stockholders' meeting is situated." Finally, section 15-501, R.C.M. 1947, provided: "Meeting of stockholders and board of directors--where held. The meetings of the stockholders of a corporation must be held at its office or principal place of business in the state of Montana, except as hereinafter provided . . ." The statutory language is clear. A corporation must comply with the statutes to properly convey corporate property. Failure to do so has been addressed by this Court in Hanrahan v. Andersen, supra. In Hanrahan this Court held that failure to comply with the statutes in a transaction of this type voids the contract. The case dealt with a con- veyance of substantially all the assets of a corporation. Sections 15-901 through 15-910, R.C.M. 1947, were all codi- fied as section 6004, R.C.M. 1921, and these same statutes were in effect at the time of the Bouma sale. The Court held in Hanrahan, 90 P.2d at 500, as follows: "Defendants contend that these transfers to Consolidated and Andersen do not come within the provisions of section 6004, because Capital retained its official books, records and office, and thereafter transacted business and was shown thereafter to have had other property. The argument overlooks the reason for the rule. If the question were merely whether the corporation had other property after the transaction, no sale could ever be objected to by a minority stock- holder, for in any sale other property is received as consideration. Furthermore, the statute refers-to the sale of 'the whole or -- any part' of the property. Every part of the ........................ statute must be construed as havinq some meaning, and since the obvious purpose of the statute- to enlarge corporate powers to - was s e l l p --p ---y......................... d a s ----- r o e r t , it must be c o n s t r u e ---------- -----------already within the authorizinq sales not powers of the board of directors because not in the furtherance and in the ordinary course of the corporation's established business. - any event- is apparent from the record In it- that both transactions involved all, of the --- ----- assets and greatly affected the corporate established corporate business, and therefore came well within the class-- transactions of necessitating compliance with the statute. "--------- y --------------- a --------- -- T h e c o n v e a n c e t o C o n s o l i d t e d was a - .............................. nullity, for the stockholders' meetings - u r ------_-------------------------- ~ -- ~ o r t e to authorize it were held on d insufficient notice. Whether the defects indicated in those proceedings were material need not be considered. . ". .Furthermore, the trust deed to Andersen was obviously void because of failure to comply with the provisions of section 6004." (Emphasis added.) Also, in Schwartz v. Inspiration Gold Mining Co. (D. Mont. 1936), 15 F.Supp. 1030, 1036, the court came to a similar conclusion: "The s t a t u t e r e q u i r e s t h a t ' n o t i c e s h a l l s t a t e t h e t i m e , p l a c e and t h e p u r p o s e of t h e meeting' [of s t o c k h o l d e r s ] ; 'and shall c o n t a i n a c o m p l e t e and s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o p o s a l t o be c o n s i d e r e d and a c t e d upon a t s a i d meeting. ' S e c t i o n 6004, Rev. Codes Mont. 1 9 2 1 , a s amended, S e s s . Laws 1 9 3 1 , pp. 1 0 8 , 1 0 7 , c . 42, S 1 ... "No answer t o a n y o f t h e s e i n q u i r i e s c a n be found i n t h e n o t i c e h e r e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n . I t follows t h a t the notice does not 'contain a c o m p l e t e and s p e c i f i c s t a t e m e n t o f t h e p r o p o s a l t o be c o n s i d e r e d and a c t e d upon a t t h e m e e t i n g ' ; w i t h t h e r e s u l t t h a t t h e same d o e s n o t m e e t t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s o f t h e Montana s t a t u t e and i s i n s u f f i c i e n t i n law t o s e t t h e power o f t h e s t o c k h o l d e r s o f t h e d e f e n d a n t c o r p o r a t i o n i n motion. J o n e s v . Vance Shoe Company ( C . C . A . 7 t h C i r . ) 1 1 5 F . 7 0 7 , 708; F o r r e s t e r v . B o s t o n & M. Mining Company, 2 1 M o n t . 5 4 4 , 5 5 P . 2 2 9 , 2 5 3 ; Thompson o n C o r p o r a t i o n ( 3 r d E d . ) p p . 106 and 2 8 4 . " Clearly, t h e c o u r t s have h e l d t h a t t h e s t a t u t e s r e g u l a t i n g t h e s a l e of c o r p o r a t e a s s e t s m u s t be s t r i c t l y f o l l o w e d and that the failure t o do s o w i l l result in the transaction being d e c l a r e d a n u l l i t y . The o n l y l a w i n s u p p o r t o f a p p e l l a n t s ' p o s i t i o n , not c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t s , c a n be found a t 9 A.L.R.2d 1 2 9 7 , and can e a s i l y be d i s t i n g u i s h e d . There is a d i s c u s s i o n i n t h i s s e c t i o n of when and how a c o r p o r a t i o n in t h e b u s i n e s s of s e l l i n g p r o p e r t y need n o t h a v e s h a r e h o l d e r a p p r o v a l t o s e l l corporate assets. However, t h e s e c t i o n draws a d i s t i n c t i o n where a corporation is selling i t s o n l y major asset and holds that in those circumstances shareholder approval is necessary. F u r t h e r , a n o t h e r d i s t i n c t i o n c a n be f o u n d i n t h e f a c t t h a t t h e r e i s no m e n t i o n of how s t a t e s t a t u t e s a f f e c t - ing c o r p o r a t e property s a l e s may a f f e c t t h e v a l i d i t y o f a s a l e without shareholder approval. The f a c t s and l a w i n s u p p o r t o f J u d g e L a n g e n ' s r u l i n g does n o t end h e r e . I n t h e f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law in causes 8221/8073, the court held that the d i r e c t o r s m e e t i n g i n which t h e Bouma c o n t r a c t came t o p a s s was a t o t a l sham. The r e a s o n s a r e c l e a r . The c o r p o r a t e l a w a t t h a t time r e q u i r e d t h a t f o r a person t o be a c o r p o r a t e director, t h e y a l s o had t o be a s t o c k h o l d e r . None o f the parties present at the Phoenix "directors" meeting were stockholders. That is, Mabel and Carl I v e r s o n had lost their s t o c k t o F a r m e r s S t a t e Bank o v e r a y e a r b e f o r e t h i s meeting was called. Krull and Treadaway had n e v e r owned s t o c k i n t h e c o r p o r a t i o n and d i d n o t own a n y a t t h e t i m e o f t h e meeting. A l s o , a l l t h e o t h e r s t o c k was h e l d by v a r i o u s i n t e r e s t s t h a t were n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e m e e t i n g . The r e a s o n t h a t no s t o c k h o l d e r s were i n a t t e n d a n c e a t t h e m e e t i n g was t h a t no n o t i c e o f t h e stockholders meeting was even g i v e n , contrary t o Chapter 9, Title 15, of the Montana C o r p o r a t i o n Code, t h e n i n e f f e c t . A l s o no p r o v i s i o n was made f o r p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e r i g h t s of d i s s e n t i n g stock- holders, as the s t a t u t e s required. No p u b l i c a t i o n o f n o t i c e or f i l i n g of t h e r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e s a l e was pub- l i s h e d i n t h e l o c a l newspaper, and no f i l i n g o f t h e c e r t i - f i c a t e s of p r o c e e d i n g s and r e s o l u t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e s a l e was made w i t h t h e P o n d e r a County c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . Quite s i m p l y , t h e m e e t i n g was a f a r c e . Appellants argue that the shareholders who were p r e s e n t were t h e s h a r e h o l d e r s of r e c o r d and t h a t , Farmers S t a t e Bank, U n i t e d Bank o f P u e b l o and S t a n l e y S w a i n e w e r e n o t s h a r e h o l d e r s of record and, therefore, not entitled t o notice. T h i s a r g u m e n t f l i e s i n t h e f a c e o f t h e l a w and t h e r e a l i t y of the situation. F i r s t of a l l , Montana c a s e l a w holds that a person may be owner of stock in a corporation even though certificates of stock have not been issued. Henningsen v. Stromberg (1950), 124 Mont. 185, 221 P.2d 438. Secondly, it required a suit by Farmers State Bank, United Bank of Pueblo and Stanley Swaine to have their interests recognized. Farmers State Bank of Conrad v. Iverson and Bouma (1973), 162 Mont. 130, 509 P.2d 839. The fact that Krull and Treadaway refused to issue certificates until they were forced to do so by court order does not mean that the aforementioned parties were not shareholders. Thus, the meeting was held by parties incapable of authorizing any- thing, much less a sale of the only major corporate asset. Of importance in any determination is the manner in which Bouma conducted himself at the time of the sale. No Montana attorney was retained in connection with the trans- action. No title investigation was conducted by Boumas on a three-quarters of a million dollar land transaction. The contract authorized payment of 44 percent of the unpaid contract installment balance directly to Krull and Treadaway instead of to the corporation. These facts illustrate the existence of questionable circumstances. Further, the fact that Bouma's ranch, the Agawam place, was purchased by the corporation for $150 per acre and six weeks later sold to members of Bouma's family, together with the fact that Bouma admitted knowing of the Farmers State Bank action and even being told of Farmers State Bank interests by Krull and Treadaway indicate that Judge Langen's ruling was not contrary to the weight of the evidence. It is apparent from the record in this case that the transactions involved virtually all of the corporate assets, greatly affected the established corporate business and, therefore, came well within that class of transactions necessitating compliance with the statute. Accordingly, t h e r e was a p r e t e n s e t o comply w i t h t h e l a w , and t h e f a i l u r e t o d o s o c a u s e d t h e c o n t r a c t t o be v o i d . T h e r e i s no q u e s - t i o n t h a t t h e m e e t i n g was a sham and t h a t t h e s h a r e h o l d e r s e n t i t l e d t o vote, 76 p e r c e n t o f t h e c o r p o r a t i o n , were n o t notified and not represented. Appellants knew a b o u t the s h a r e h o l d e r a c t i o n , t o o k a gamble when t h e y " p u r c h a s e d " t h e I v e r s o n f a r m and l o s t . I s s u e 2: Were t h e r e g e n u i n e i s s u e s o f m a t e r i a l f a c t i n t h e c a s e which made summary judgment i n a p p r opr i a t e ? Summary judgment i s p r o p e r ". . . i f the pleadings, depositions, answers t o i n t e r r o g a t o r i e s , and a d m i s s i o n s on f i l e , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e a f f i d a v i t s , i f a n y , show t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e a s t o a n y m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e moving party is e n t i t l e d to judgment as a matter of law . . ." R u l e 5 6 ( c ) , M.R.Civ.P. A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n granting the corporation's summary j u d g m e n t m o t i o n b e c a u s e t h e r e were m a t e r i a l i s s u e s of f a c t t h a t were p r e s e n t and m u s t be a d j u d i c a t e d by a t r i a l . Appellants urge t h a t they p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e i r own summary judgment m o t i o n and t o d e n y t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s m o t i o n . Ap- p e l l a n t s argue t h a t because of their "numerous a f f i d a v i t s " t h e m o t i o n s h o u l d be d e n i e d . Also, t h e y contend t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t v o i d a b i l i t y was a q u e s t i o n o f f a c t f o r a j u r y , that the judge's misquotation of their s e v e n t h d e f e n s e was i m p r o p e r and t h a t somehow r e s j u d i c a t a h a s b e e n i m p r o p e r l y u s e d a g a i n s t them. None o f t h e s e arguments a r e on p o i n t . Nor a r e a n y o f them s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t a r e v e r s a l o f t h e District Court's ruling. A p p e l l a n t s p r e s e n t e d n o t h i n g b u t f a n c i f u l and f r i v o - l o u s m a t e r i a l , n o t h i n g which c o u l d be c o n s i d e r e d t o be of a substantial nature. T h i s i s c o n t r a r y t o t h e l a w i n Montana. C h e y e n n e W. Bank v . Young ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 9 Mont. 492, 587 P . 2 d 401, 35 S t . R e p . 1806. The c a s e law i n Montana i s c l e a r o n this issue and has been repeated and discussed numerous times. I n F l a n s b e r g v . Montana Power Co. ( 1 9 7 0 ) , 1 5 4 Mont. 5 3 , 460 P . 2 d 2 6 3 , t h e C o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e b u r d e n is upon t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o p r e s e n t evidence of a substan- t i a l and m a t e r i a l n a t u r e r a i s i n g a g e n u i n e issue of fact. Once t h e c o r p o r a t i o n had p r e s e n t e d i t s f a c t s i n s u p p o r t o f t h e m o t i o n , a p p e l l a n t s had t h e b u r d e n o f o p p o s i n g t h e m o t i o n w i t h t h e i r own f a c t s . They f a i l e d t o d o s o . The c a s e law is e x p l i c i t and the citations abound t h a t t h e burden s h i f t s t o t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o p r e s e n t m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l f a c t s t o oppose t h e motion. H a r l a n d v. Anderson ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 6 9 Mont. 447, 548 P.2d 613; Taylor v. Anaconda F e d e r a l C r e d i t Union ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 1 7 0 Mont. 5 1 , 540 P.2d 1 5 1 ; Rumph v . D a l e E d w a r d s , Inc. (1979), Mont . , 600 P.2d 163, 36 S t . R e p . 1022; 6 Moore's Fed. Prac. 756.16. In State ex rel. Burlington Northern v. District Court (1972), 1 5 9 Mont. 295, 496 P.2d 1152, we affirmed the rule that: " F a i l u r e o f t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion t o e i t h e r r a i s e or demonstrate t h e existence of a genuine i s s u e of material fact, o r t o demonstrate t h a t t h e l e g a l i s s u e should not be determined i n f a v o r o f t h e movant, i s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e p a r t y ' s b u r d e n was n o t carried. Summary j u d g m e n t i s t h e n p r o p e r , t h e c o u r t b e i n g u n d e r no d u t y t o a n t i c i p a t e p r o o f t o e s t a b l i s h a m a t e r i a l and s u b s t a n t i a l i s s u e o f f a c t . " 496 P.2d a t 1 1 5 5 . I n Harland v. Anderson, supra, t h e Court held that once t h e burden h a s s h i f t e d , t h e p a r t y opposing t h e motion i s h e l d t o a s t a n d a r d o f p r o o f which i s a s s u b s t a n t i a l a s that initially imposed on t h e moving p a r t y . Finally, in N a e g e l i v . D a n i e l s ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 5 Mont. 3 2 3 , 400 P.2d 8 9 6 , t h e Court held t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t , i n c o n s i d e r i n g a motion f o r summary j u d g m e n t , h a s no d u t y t o a n t i c i p a t e p o s s i b l e p r o o f t h a t m i g h t be o f f e r e d u n d e r t h e p l e a d i n g s and t h a t a s k i n g f o r s u c h f o r e s i g h t demands " c l a i r v o y a n c e " n o t p o s s e s s e d by even a trial judge. The contentions for reversal that a p p e l l a n t s argued ( i . e . , r e s j u d i c a t a , contract voidability, etc.) were not presented in a substantial and material manner t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The c o u r t f o u n d t h e c o n t r a c t v o i d b e c a u s e t h e r e a m s of evidence presented by t h e r e s p o n d e n t s u p p o r t e d i t , and one need o n l y t o look t o t h e p r e v i o u s d i s c u s s i o n t o s e e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was awesome. A p p e l l a n t s had t o p r e s e n t e v i d e n c e t o oppose t h i s m a t e r i a l . They d i d n o t , a n d , t h e r e f o r e , the summary judgment m o t i o n was p r o p e r . A p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e manner i n which t h e j u d g e c o n s t r u e d t h e i r s e v e n t h d e f e n s e s h o u l d be s u f f i c i e n t t o d e n y t h e motion. The s u b s t i t u t i o n of the word "further" for " l a t e r " is n o t s u f f i c i e n t g r o u n d s i n l i g h t o f t h e t r e m e n d o u s amount of facts presented by respondent to warrant a r e v e r s a l of t h e r u l i n g . Finally, appellants argue that the judgment from c a u s e s 8221/8073 s h o u l d n o t be u s e d (res judicata) against them. The f i n d i n g s o f f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w t h a t w e r e e s t a b l i s h e d i n c o n s o l i d a t e d c a u s e s 8221/8073 a r e b i n d i n g o n the appellants. 6 Moore's Fed. Prac. 7156; In Re Russell (1974), 115 Ca1.Rptr. 511, 12 Cal.3d 229, 524 P.2d 1295. First, the issue is one that would involve collateral estoppel, i.e., issue preclusion; the issue does not involve res judicata, i.e., claim preclusion. Second, it would be burdensome, if not illogical, for a court not to recognize the findings and judgment of another court on the same factual issues. Finally, the contract was void ab initio in August 1968, and the contract remains so today. Issue 3: Are any of the appellants' "defenses" suf- ficient to warrant a reversal of the sum- mary judgment (i.e., (a) laches, (b) estoppel, (c) ratification, (d) statute of limitations, (e) etc.)? Appellants contend that the lower court erred because it failed to recognize the numerous "defenses" that would warrant reversal of the summary judgment. In the previous discussion the basis for granting summary judgment was presented. Appellants had the burden at the time of the motion in the District Court to present material and sub- stantial facts to oppose the granting of the motion. Naegeli v. Daniels (1965), 145 Mont. 323, 400 P.2d 896; Harland v. Anderson (1976), 169 Mont. 447, 548 P.2d 613; 6 Moore's Fed. Prac. 156.15. They failed to do this. Appellants contend that the respondent by its actions ratified the contract and is thereby estopped from saying the contract is void. It has been held that a contract entered into without the power to contract cannot be rati- fied or enforced and that the incapacity to contract cannot be removed by estoppel. Granzow v. Village of Lyons (7th Cir. 1937), 89 F.2d 83. Further, appellants argue that respondent's action is barred by laches. The respondent has been pursuing this matter since the court declared that the corporate usurpers must be ejected and the rightful stockholders must be recog- nized. Farmers State Bank of Conrad v. Iverson (1973), 162 Mont. 130, 509 P.2d 839. Respondent has not failed to pur- sue this action in a timely manner, but was merely delayed by the actions of the appellants and the corporate usurpers. The final contention by the appellants is that the respondent is barred by the statute of limitations to bring this action. This is unfounded because section 27-2-214 and section 27-2-202, MCA, hold otherwise. Also, appellants could not have expected respondent to file sooner than December 10, 1971, because the corporation was in the control of the usurpers and the degree to which the usurpers had been defrauding the corporation did not become known until well after the contract in question was entered into. Issue 4: Did the District Court err in substituting the partially reconstituted corporation in place of the plaintiff receiver while the corporation remained under receivership? Appellants contend the lower court erred in substi- tuting the partially reconstituted corporation in place of the receiver. Under section 15-2291, R.C.M. 1947 (now section 35-1-922, MCA), the District Court had the power to make the substitution. Appellants' argument is unfounded in the facts and the law. Issue on cross-appeal: Did the District Court err in its accounting decree? This is a suit for an accounting. It must be decided upon i t s own p e c u l i a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s which c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h it f r o m a l l o t h e r a u t h o r i t i e s c i t e d and r e l i e d upon by either party. Reickoff v. Consolidated Gas Co. ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 3 Mont. 555, 217 P.2d 1 0 7 6 . The District Court ruled that appellants were e n t i t l e d t o $819,321.08 f o r t h e c r o p s h a r e and i n t e r e s t . The c o r p o r a t i o n argues t h a t t h i s i s improper because t h e c o u r t is rewarding t h e a p p e l l a n t s f o r t h e i r i l l e g a l a c t i o n . I n an accounting action, the court is s i t t i n g i n e q u i t y and c a n d e t e r m i n e from t h e f a c t s presented, t h e t e s t i m o n y and the circumstances which awards are the most equitable. The appellants did not act in good faith in their effort to acquire the land i n question. T h e r e is l i t t l e d o u b t t h a t a p p e l l a n t s knew t h e c o n t r a c t t h e y e n t e r e d i n t o was s u s p e c t . However, they did g i v e up s o m e t h i n g t o acquire the farm. They gambled t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t would n e v e r be q u e s t i o n e d a n d proceeded t o t r e a t the land as t h e i r own s i n c e 1 9 6 8 . To d e p r i v e p e r s o n s of their e f f o r t s and t o s a y t h a t t h e y d i d not actually "keep" the farm operating efficiently and p r o f i t a b l y ' d u r i n g t h a t p e r i o d would a l s o be u n f a i r . A dilemma o c c u r s a s t o whether a p p e l l a n t s s h o u l d be awarded f o r t h e i r e f f o r t s o r d e p r i v e d of any r e i m b u r s e m e n t for the caretaking of the farm. The D i s t r i c t Court was proper in ruling that the appellants should receive two- thirds of the crop share, $819,321.08, if for no other reason than i t was f a i r and e q u i t a b l e . To d e p r i v e a p p e l - l a n t s t h e f r u i t s o f t h e i r l a b o r f o r t h i r t e e n y e a r s would n o t be in the best i n t e r e s t s of justice, f a i r p l a y and p u b l i c policy. Rieckhoff, supra, does not apply a s t h a t case d e a l s with a w i l l f u l trespasser. This Court w i l l not t r e a t appel- l a n t s a s such, b u t w i l l f o l l o w t h e r u l e of e q u i t y t h a t each c a s e s t a n d s on i t s own f a c t s i n a n e q u i t y a c t i o n . Hamilton v . Rock ( 1 9 4 8 ) , 1 2 1 Mont. 245, 1 9 1 P.2d 663. However, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d e r r i n i t s a c c o u n t i n g d e c r e e i n a l l o w i n g a p p e l l a n t s t h e e x c e s s amounts by w h i c h t h e v a l u e of i m p r o v e m e n t s made upon t h e f a r m e x c e e d e d t h e c o s t of s u c h improvements. The c o r p o r a t i o n a r g u e s t h a t t h e r e i m b u r s e m e n t f o r t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s s h o u l d be l i m i t e d t o t h e c o s t o f t h o s e i m p r o v e m e n t s and c i t e s t h e R e s t a t e m e n t o f t h e Law, Restitution, § 42 at 42, as authority, along with v a r i o u s c a s e c i t a t i o n s i n support of t h e Restatement. Also, t h e c o r p o r a t i o n contends t h a t t h e r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e is t h a t a w i l l f u l t r e s p a s s e r s h a l l r e c e i v e no c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r t h e i m p r o v e m e n t s made and a n y i m p r o v e m e n t s a p p e l l a n t s made a f t e r the i n s t i g a t i o n of this a c t i o n should not be compensated for. However, t h e c o r p o r a t i o n asked i n its p l e a d i n g s t h a t a p p e l l a n t s r e c e i v e no more than the c o s t of the improve- ments. 42 C . J . S . Improvements, § 7 a t 436-437, states: "As a g e n e r a l r u l e a n o c c u p a n t i s r e g a r d e d a s a n o c c u p a n t i n bad f a i t h and n o t e n t i t l e d t o c o m p e n s a t i o n f o r h i s i m p r o v e m e n t s , w h e r e , and o n l y w h e r e , he e i t h e r h a s a c t u a l n o t i c e o f a d v e r s e t i t l e , o r what i s e q u i v a l e n t t h e r e t o , s u c h a s where t h e r e i s b r o u g h t home t o him n o t i c e o f some f a c t o r c i r c u m s t a n c e t h a t would p u t a man o f o r d i n a r y p r u d e n c e t o s u c h an i n q u i r y a s would, i f h o n e s t l y f o l l o w e d , l e a d t o a knowledge o f t h e a d v e r s e t i t l e . I t h a s a l s o been h e l d t h a t an o c c u p a n t c a n n o t r e c o v e r i f he had f u l l means o f d i s c o v e r i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e of such adverse t i t l e , because i n o r d e r t o be i n t h e p o s i t i o n o f a h o l d e r i n good f a i t h h e must h a v e u s e d p r o p e r c a r e and d i l i g e n c e i n ascertaining t h e condition of t h e t i t l e on which h e b a s e s h i s c l a i m .. ." See a l s o Fouser v. Paige ( 1 9 8 0 ) , 1 0 1 I d a h o 294, 612 P.2d 137. The d i s c u s s i o n c o n t i n u e s i n 42 C . J . S . Improvements, S 7 a t 438, by s t a t i n g , ". . . it is g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t an occupant is not entitled to compensation for improvements made on the land after the commencement of an action in which title is disputed." From the foregoing and from the facts on hand in this matter, it would appear that appel- lants are not entitled to the cost of their improvements, much less the enhanced value. Appellants were aware of the questionable nature of their title, contained in the void contract, and there is no question that the majority of the improvements took place after this suit had commenced. However, the corporation is asking that the credit allowed appellants be reduced by $82,148--that is, it does not want the entire credit removed but only the enhanced value. Since this is the amount plead, and this Court is sitting in equity on the accounting decree, the award to appellants should be reduced from $192,500 (enhanced value of improve- ments) to $110,352, the cost of the improvements. The District Court further erred in the accounting decree by allowing appellants to retain the oil and gas income derived from the corporation farmland during the accounting period. Boumas received "title" to the oil and gas rights through the void contract. The corporation, represented by Krull and Treadaway, did not have the authority to make the original contract and, therefore, did not have the authority to contract away the corporation's mineral (oil and gas) rights. This allowance must be vacated. As so modified, the judgment of the District Court is af f irmed. W concur: e Chief J u s t i c e Honorable J a c k L. Green, D i s - t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e o f Mr. J u s t i c e D a n i e l J . S h e a Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy: I concur in part but dissent to the offset result in the majority opinion.