No. 90-148
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1990
PAT M. GOODOVER,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
LINDEYIS, INC., and the ESTATE OF
WILLIAM C. FOREST, deceased, and
the unknown heirs and unknown devisees
of any Defendant, above-named, who may
be deceased, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Missoula,
The Honorable Jack L. Green, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Paul Neal Cooley, Skelton & Cooley, Missoula,
Montana (Lindey s) ; Jerome T. Loendorf , Harrison,
Loendorf & Posten, Helena, Montana (Estate of
Forest)
For Respondent:
John W. Larson, Missoula, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: August 9, 1990
~ecided: December 18, 1990
Filed:
s I
r I
Justice William E. Hunt, Sr. delivered the Opinion of the Court.
Defendant and appellant, Lindeyts,Inc., appeals from an order
of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Missoula County, requiring
it to undertake efforts to locate underground fuel storage tanks
and to remove a restroom facility encroaching upon property owned
by plaintiff and respondent, Pat M. Goodover. We affirm.
We will address the following issue:
Did the District Court err in fashioning a remedy to enforce
its earlier declaratory judgment that established the location of
the north-south boundary line dividing the partiest property?
Plaintiff and respondent, Pat M. Goodover, is the owner of Lot
2 and defendant and appellant, Lindeyts, Inc., is the owner of Lot
1 of the Seeley Lake Shores Sites in Missoula County. In order to
resolve a boundary dispute between the parties, Goodover, on August
21, 1984, filed an action for declaratory judgment and quiet title.
After a trial held on April 7, 1987, the District Court issued
findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment in favor of
Goodover, establishing the north-south boundary between the lots.
The court specifically reserved the issue of damages for a later
hearing.
Lindeyts appealed to this Court, arguing that substantial
credible evidence did not support the boundary line established by
the District Court. In Goodover v. Lindeyts, Inc., 232 Mont. 302,
757 P.2d 1290 (1988), we affirmed the judgment of the District
Court.
After the complaint was filed but prior to trial, Lindeyls
constructed a restroom facility and installed two underground fuel
storage tanks in the area of the disputed boundary. Once the
boundary was established by the District Court, it was apparent
that the restroom encroached upon Goodoverlsproperty. It was also
possible that the fuel storage tanks encroached upon the property;
however, it was impossible to determine the exact location of the
tanks because they were buried.
Following this Courtlsaffirmance of the boundary-line issue,
Goodover petitioned the District Court to issue an order requiring
Lindeyls to show cause why it should not be required to remove the
restroom facility from its encroachment and why it should not be
required to determine the exact site of the underground fuel
storage tanks. A hearing on the matter was held on November 13,
1989, after which the District Court entered an order requiring
Lindeyls to remove the encroaching restroom facility and to locate
the buried fuel storage tanks. Lindeyts appeals.
Lindeylsraises a myriad of issues in an attempt to relitigate
the boundary-line question. We refuse to examine these arguments,
however, because the boundary-line issue was reviewed and finally
decided during the first appeal to this Court. The District
Courtlsdetermination of the boundary line is thus res judicata and
cannot be reconsidered on this appeal.
The issue we will consider is whether the District Court erred
in fashioning a remedy to enforce its declaratory judgment that
established the north-south boundary dividing the parties1
property. Lindeyls argues that the ~istrictCourt exceeded its
jurisdiction by requiring it to move the restroom and locate the
fuel storage tanks when Goodoverls complaint did not request such
measures in its prayer for relief. We do not agree.
Goodover brought this action as one for quiet title and
declaratory judgment. The Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, §fj
27-8-201 through -313, MCA, authorizes the District Court to
provide supplemental relief when petitioned to do so. Section 27-
8-313, MCA, states:
Further relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree
may be granted whenever necessary or proper. The
application therefore shall be by petition to a court
having jurisdiction to grant the relief. If the
application be deemed sufficient, the court shall, on
reasonable notice, require any adverse party whose rights
have been adjudicated by a declaratory judgment or decree
to show cause why further relief should not be granted
forthwith.
The statute enables the District Court to retain jurisdiction
to grant further relief as it deems necessary and proper to enforce
the declaratory judgment. The supplemental relief should be
designed to provide complete relief to the parties, which may
include a monetary judgment or coercive relief or both. See Lowe
v. Harmon, 115 P.2d 297, 300 (Or. 1941). In fashioning the remedy,
the court is not bound by the relief requested in the complaint but
may order any relief needed to effectuate the judgment. Dry Canyon
Farms, Inc. v. United States Natll Bank, 772 P.2d 1343, 1345 (Or.
Ct. App. 1989).
In Dry Canyon Farms, 772 P.2d at 1345, the Oregon Court of
Appeals interpreted the scope of Oregon's supplemental relief
6 u
statute, which is identical to ours, as follows:
[Tlhe scope of relief under ORS 2 8 . 0 8 0 [the Oregon
supplemental relief statute] is controlled by the
underlying declaratory judgment and not by the claims
raised in the original proceedings. Accordingly, a party
is not precluded from seeking supplemental relief in the
form of damages by its failure to claim such damages in
the original declaratory proceeding.
Likewise, Goodover was not precluded from asking the District
Court to order Lindeyls to remove the restroom facility and to
locate the underground fuel storage tanks. The remedies were
needed to give complete and effectual relief to the declaratory
judgment . The full resolution of the boundary-line dispute
required Lindeyls to remove the encroachments from Goodoverls
property. The District Court did not err in granting the
supplemental relief.
Affirmed.
We Concur: