No. 01-014
iK ;Ti-!E SIJPREhZE COURT OF THE STATE OF \ / I O N T l i A
200%21T 152
'rrARBRO, L.TD., a Ncvada corporation, dibja
LAKE .MEAD RADIOlLOGlSTS,
Plaintiff and Pippellant,
\.
RIISSOUI.,A FEDERAL CREDIT UNIOX:
a Montana Banking Corporation, DOE
INDIVLDUALS I-X, ROE CORPORATIONS I-X,
Defendants and Respondents.
APPEAL FIIOM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District:
In and for the County oSMissoula,
l.Ionorable John Larson, Judge Presidiiig
COUNSEL. OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Jolin F. \;elk, Blakely & Velk, Missoula, Montana
Cl-rarles I. Lybarger, Lybarger, Burrin & Bunin, Las Vegas, Ncvada
For Respondent:
&
Ronald A. Bendcr, 12'0rdct1, TI~aile ilaines, P.C., blissoilla, ;\/lor~lana
Submitted on Briefs June 7,2001
Dccrdcd July 3,2002
Justice Jim Rice cieii\-cred ilie Opinion ni'thc Court.
*; 1 iipppcil:inr Yar13rot 1-rd., db:a L;iice ticiid ficirI~
Radiologists (l';irbro). iipp-~~is ;hi:
Juciiciaf District ('oilit. Miss(>i,il:i ' ( j i i r l y g ~ ~ i t i ~ ~ t ~ n ~ i i y \ - i " t diiir i ~ c ! ~ i
order ofthe Fo~irllr ( n? g
h v o r of Rcspoxdcnr \fisso~ili:f'eciesal C'reiiit Ljnion (Z11:C'!..:j aild denying Yiirbro's :~?criiori
for a cllangc af venac. We aff'firm.
2
' The following issilcs ar-e disposiiivc:
3 1 . Whether t!ic District Coiirt erred in granting surniiiziry judg~neiitto kd\/LFC1;
011
Yarbro's conversion claiin on the grounds that the claim was barred by the applicable statute
of limitations.
7j4 2. L$Tl~el'i~er District Co~11.t
the erred in gran~iiigsumrnary judgrncnt to tlFCl, on
Yarhro's hreach of win-i-anty claini on the grounds that Yarbro \vas rcsponsib!e for tlic acts
of its own ctiiployccs.
'I5 3. Whether thc District Court crrcd in cicnying Ynrbro's motion fbr a changc of
venue.
FAC'l-l.J.41. r\h'l> PfI.!R:11. t3;\<,'K(iROl..YD,
0
31 Yarbro is a racliologisr firm operated as 1.akc %lead Radiolagisis in Ilerrdcrson.
Ncvada. ICathryn Velean (Mci.canj was employed byVarb!-o from Jar!u;:r-y of 11193 tlirough
.June of' 1906. %tcl,can's rcsponsibilities iticluclcd tl:ira ci~ii-y.filing, posting payinents,
processing accounts rci.ci\rablc, sending oiit statenicnts; billing anti ;ic~oiintiiig.During the
cotiric of 11cr employmcnr, blcl.ca~nforged signi!!:~!-cs oil o\.cr n i~andrcii
checks and iiloncy
orders. *cleI,eitn woi~lci
intcrccpt cl1ecks jnid on patient accc!ilnts \\,hich ~verc
pnqablc either
-
?
on
to [Lake hfeaii or to indiviciutli c1itcto1-s;she wouiil cndorsc ihc ci~ecks hehalfof i.ake Mecad
or il;e injj\i:iual doctors and makc them p a ~ h l i to !~ziselCT!~crr,? v f ~ i . ~ ; i ~i o i ! ?cridors;:
: i d
tl:c cl?echs in her name and mail them to fLIFC'l-: fbr ileposil into her-personal :recount ti~ere.
7;
'l'hc iast deposit to McL.ekin' ClFC'L; account was :made on JLLIIC ILjcii>. l ~ c
T vaiiic of tlhc
forged checks and money orders exceecied S00,000.00.
"i On JutieOi l"lO'i: Yarbro filed a complaint against LIFCC in %fissoulaCounty seeking
damages in rhe amount of the fbrgecl checks and moricy orders, alleging unlalvkrl conversion
by
of negotiable inst~~iments MFClJ, tinder 3 30-3-41 '4. ?+\;1C.',1\ JUC'C 5 3-41 9). and breach
of transfer warranties, under 3 30-3-207, MC.4 (I.IC'C 3 4-207). On July 3; 21100; ,!4ppe?lanr
moved for a cliange of venue, asserting iliat, because k~lonor:ible Edward klct.can, a judge
of the Fourth Judicial ISistrict. is tile uttcle of McLean, an iinpai-tiai trial couid not hi:
conductecl ill Misso~ilaCounty. 011 July 0 , 2000; hZF('l..T tiled a rnotioii for summary
judgment, argiiing Varhro's con\-ersion claim was barred by statute of ii~nitations.that
Yarbro's brcach of warmnty claiin was barred becati~e
Yarbro is responsible for the acts of
its own eniployees. and iitrtlier, that V:irbro could not bring i
: claim for l?rcacli of transfer
warranties against k!I'vZl'C'i:. 011Septeinhel- 5.Zi)O(i, the i)isirict ('cii1i.t. iioiiorable Julli? YC.
Larson presiding. deniccl Yarbro's motion for change of venue and granted siimrnary
jucigntcnt in fhvor of b1CIFC'U. FI-or11that judgment and order, Yarhro appeals.
S7':%"L:I)ARDOF KEVlEM;
78 Summary .jutigmeni is tippropi-iatc when rite pleadings. discovery and ai'iidaviis
establish that tlzere is no geniline issue as to any maierit~ifact atid that tlie moving itirre is
i.r!>ting sijmrnar> jiidgmcnt dc iio;:o. by iipi?iyil?~
liie
. .
iiiilli' e~i:iliiiilc)!l1:553d On iiui: 56,
~d
M.R.C'iv.l'.. as r.;lfei.itiiii;:Oli't,..
&st!-ict coiirt. .Sciiiir~?iri~ki~r i iO"1 8 ' 1 ' 70.4; ?4. 388
Mont. 21 7_7: 13, 050 P.2d 1370, *j 14.
0i
l l'he moving parry n i ~ ~demonstrate that no genuine issues of marerial tkct itxist.
st
Then the burden shifts to the non-iiioving party t provc, by more tliaii mere dci~ialand
o
speculation, that a genuine issue does exist. Reli & :L.lnrt.cr, I'I.LC v. .Sz~l/iviit?,
200(, b1'T 200,
* 25? 300 Viotit. 530, rj 25, 6 P.3d 965, rj 25. If tlie court dcternlines that genuine issi~es
of
Fact do not exist, the court must then dcteinninc ~vl~etlicr moving party is ci~titlcd
:he to
judgment as a inattcr of Ian. Uell, ! 25. '1-his Court i.evicix;s a district coiirt's legal
j
co~lclusions detertninc iftlrcy are correct. Hell. ";5.
to
7ilO The party opposing suintnary judgrncilt cannot rely on mere allegations in thc
issrzes of material fict in the ibiai
pleadings, but 111nst present its eviilence raising gcn~iinc
l g;
o f affidavits or other s ~ o r ltestiinoliy. .Schfi~nili;kei..15: see also Kiwi; I , . T(iii'ii i~[C'~z.vciiijC'
( 1 9971,284 Mont. 167,943 P.2~1
1262. LVhile this Court rcsolves ally infcrciices draw11from
the iactual record in favor of the party opposirig sunitnary judgmctit, mere cicniiii,
speculation, orconclusory state~i~ents ins~ifficiciltto
arc raisea ycnuinc issiieiif i-i~aterial
hzt.
(1 15.
.Sci~~imcicitei-~
D1SCL;SSION
"1 1
I i . Dici the Ilisrrict Coiilt en- in graiztiiig suiiiniary j u d g ~ ~ i eoil tihi' gro~!ii(?s
~l that
Yiirhro's conversion c l a i ~ ~were ha]-rciiby the app!ictib!c sl;rtutc ui'lirnitatinris?
ls
4
-5
811 iil Count i o -its Compiaint, Yarbro 2illeg~:l ui11awl;ii i:~iivcrsioi! of negotiabla:
i
grt3ntctisuml~?;ry,juifgn~e~it
tti XiFC'L,' on this counf. lindijrg rhc n
:
!
i
. time
..?-as bi:i-rcii tinder
rhe applicable statute of lin~itations. 11olding which J'arhrii ci)l~tc!iils
a \v:is CISO~C~LIS
"i3 When interpreting the Llnifonii Coniincrciai C'utie, wc bear in rnii-id its purposes itilci
objectives. I'hcse obicctivcs include thc uniform application o f c o i ~ ~ n ~ e r c i a l among the
law
v:irious jurisdictions, the siri~pliiicatiort tnoderni~arion thc 1:iw govcrnirrg cotnrncrciai
and of
transztcrions, and thc presumption in favor of predictability anti finality of commercial
transactions. See $ 30-1-102, blCA, "Purposes--rules of construction variation by
5,13 The applicable statute of lirnit:ttions for eonvcrsion of negiitiablc insti-urncnts is set
forth in $ 30-3- 122, MCX. Subsection (7) ststtcs:
Llnlcss governed by orhcr law regarding claims for iridc~nnityor-
contribution, an action for conversion of an iiistriirnent, ibr money llad anci
rcccivcd, or for likc action bascd on conversion: fbr breach of \vztrranty; or to
enforce an obligation. duty. or right arising under this chapter and not
governed by this section nltlst bc commenced \vitIiin 3 years after the causc of
action accrues.
Section 30-3-122(7). btCL'+. Tlre Oflicial C.onzments state that tliis silbseciioo covers
conversion cases and other actions to cnfoscc obligations or rights arising under Ariiclc 3.
cstahlisbcd b , tile statutc"fulciillivc knoivir that !a cause of ac-iron exists. ~ i i i - i w i i ; - g i e r ~hi(: 1..
K ~, Eisisii/~
H/iiik ii,iMiiiitiii~;r( IO'iii). 242 blont. 155,l00, 7Kii P.2d 567,576.
! 8 Varljro iltrirns it had iio reiis~il st~spi-ct
to il::~r 23 cor~vcrsioi:had occiirrcci prior tii?ilni:
10, 1900, lvhcn it first discovcrcd thiit klcl..can !?:id cngagcil in Sriiiidulect iiclivitlc". fFunhcr,
Yarlxo asserts i t \\.as entitled to obtain copics of the checks in qucsriori fion: MFC'I.; and
inspect tile checks to deterniiiie MFCG's involvement in the matter. b1ore:iver; Yarbro
claims when i t knew or should have known of the forgeries is a question of material FLct that
needs to be deterniinect, anci thirs, strmrmary judgrncrit is inappropriate.
710 Yarbro's assertion that the discovery doctrine slio~ild applied here is prerniscd up012
be
'. -<'
two al.guments. First, it cites the CCC statutes oflitlliiatioli sct Forth at 9 sr_i-4-207(5), "\1C'!i,
anc! $ 30-3-117(4); MCA, both of n:hich provide that ""a cause of action !'or breach of
warrant): tinder this section accrucs when the claimant has reason to know of the brc:icl~."
I-ioucvcr. by the plain meaning or these ptavisions and ihcir placement witlhin statutes
:iddrcssing breach of ~v~trraiity. arc applicable only to hrcazh of \v;li-i-:iilt:i actions, nor
they
conversion. These statutory provisiotis tllus have n o application to Yarbrois cunvcrsiun
claim.
320 Secotrdly, Yztrbro cites the eonccalment or\ilcl.e:tn in this maitcr :rnci oris case law's
applicatioil o f t h e discovery doctrine in certain instances. 'llthougl~tlic app!icatiiin cifthe
disco.. c. i y
~ doctrinc to a LC'C conversion case is one of ilrst impression in YItii~ttiri~i~
substar~tia!
consideration o f d issiic h a s o c c ~ ~ ~in ori~ercuiins.
~ ~'iil will? sig~~iticantagrceinec~.
. .
4:2
1 , [ 1, 3 . j ]:.Ztj 1224,the 1edcr:;l circiirr ~oi:rr
&ciiiii.d lz, PI?!:; rile $isc(j\~ci-;i
doctril~c a I:('(
io 4 3-41') cmicrsioi~ slating, "i.'hcrc
ciisc
apart! not engaging in fraudulent concealiiient asserts thcstarriic oflin1itatiiiris cicfiiiisc. ruc;ir
courts have ref;ascd to apply the discovery rule to negotiable instriirncnts, finding I inimical
to UC'C policies of finality aricl negotiability." .2lei1icilini,995 F.2d at 1230.
7122 iVercr Co. I>. ~GIilIii~silcr H r ~ f i i(Iowa lOOO), 300 N.kV.2~1
In .Jl~isker Sfirte i 476, tile iowa
Suprcn~e
Coutt offered similar reasons for not applying tl3c discovery iioetrinc. to 21 l,yi'i' 3
-3-310 conversion action and reported that otlier statcs are nearly ~ina~?inroustlieir rcftisai
in
to appiy tile discover-y rille in cases of conversion. It siiitcti, " t i e firlit thcir IICC~S~OIIS
pcrsuasivc arid note that such ai~iiiorityis cntitlcd to cvcn greater. defcrcncc where
corrsistcricy arid unifht-mity ofapplication i~r-ecsse~itial
cicmcnts oTact>mprchcnsivestatutory
scl~erne . . . the Uniform Cornniercial Coile." Ifztskct. jVci.i;s t,'~.. X.W.2d at 378.
like 460
323 'PhcCourtofi\ppeals for the District ofColumbia C'ircuit also endorseti this approach.
111 Kuw(iiz dzfirtv~~g~.s v. Ainc~ric,(u~ 13(rtik (L1.C'. Cir. 1980), 800 F.2d 356, the cc~~;i(i.soii,C . (1987). 228 24ont. 288.
(2>rzfiritr1ce 1,. /PI
204, 741 iJ.2d 794: 798. For frauciuicnt concealrrient to ctccur; "tl~cre
must bc art afiir~native
act corn~niired the dclcnciant, and i l ~ e
by afirl~rativc must be calciilated to obscure the
act
cuistcnce of the cause ofaction." Yc://o\t~.si(>i~c o,f/l!eL!/ii!e(i /L/cr/~o(ii,st
C~o~~j>~.eric~c~ C.Imt~~tJi,
228 biont. at 294, 741 P.2d at 798. Yarhro has set hrth no evictence claiini~lgMI;C'I'
fraudulently co~lccalcd
Mc1,cart's actions or Yarbro's discovery thereof.
728 We decline Yarbro's suggestion to apply thc discovery doctrinc to Yarbro's
colivcrsion claim. 'The plain meaning o f 5 30-3-122(7), CIC'Al requires commencenleot of
a conversion action wit1ii11three years ofthe action's accrual. Further, the public \3!ould he
poorly served by a rule t h a ~
effectively shifis the respo~isihilitv caref'ul bookkeeping aiild
for
employee supervisioi~a\vay ii-om rirose in the best position to nio~litoraccounts ailc'i
employees. The strict applicatiol: oftlie t!?r-ee-yearstatute oi'limitaiions, v-hiie i)re:iicrabiy
harsh in sorirc cases, best serves t l ~ c
goals adv::~-rccdby the ilr~ifor-~n
Coinrrrcrcia! Code.
4;29 [lairingdetcrmjncd tbc discoyery doctrine i s nor applicahlc in t h i s case. and that the
:statute of limitations wris not tolied h:- conzcalr?rcnt, t"ai.hro's argiiineilt that surnrilary
rcmains regirding ivhen Yi~iliro
juitgmcnt cannot be entered hccausc a questioii off;~ct knew
or should havc kliown of Mc1,can's forgerie rnust fiii. 'The 111ateri;il facts ncccssaq kr
i
determining if sttrnnlary judgrnent is appropriate by reason of statute of limitations arc the
clirtes of the convcrsion and the filing of Yarbro's Complaint. These facts arc noi in dispute,
and therethre, tl?c 1)istriet ('our7 correctly licld that ?VZI;C'I.: is catitled to judgmc~lt a illatlei-
as
of law 011Y arbro's con\crsion clann
"30
:I- 2. Did thc District Court err in granting summary judgment to b1FC;U on Yarbr0.s
breach oftvarranty claim on the grounds that Yarbro \+-itsresponsible for the acts of its own
crnployces'?
731 In Count l l of its Complaint, Yarbro alleged that MFCl.! is a eollectirtg beilk and
sougllt damages against MFCV for brcacli of transfir marrantics under $ 30-4-207? l i l C 1 .
Sectton 30-3-207, MC.4, sratcs in part.
(1 ) : custotner or collecting bank that iransiers iin item and rcccivcs o
I
settlement or other consideration warrants to rlie transferee and to any
subsequent collecting bank that:
(a) the warrantor is a person elrtitleci to cnhrcc the item;
(b) all signatures on the item arc authentic and autlrorizcd;
(c) the rtenl has not been dltered;
(d) the ircnl is no! subject to a ileknsc or claini iii recoLzplnent stated in
30-3-305(1) of any party to 111eitern that call be asserted against the warrantor;
and
(el the warrantor has 110 knowlec!ge of any iiisolveiicy pn>cccdi!ig
cotnnicnced with respect to tile maker or acceptor or, in r k case of an
unacceprcd draft*the cirawcr.
ro
*;?2 The District Co~i1.tgranted sutntnary judg~~lcnt k4IZ('11 on Varbro's brcach of
warranty claim, holding, pursuant to 5 30-3-420, ?/1C.A9that an eiiiployer ~ v h o
entrust an
employcc with responsibility tbr processing insti-uments is liable if that cmployec
ti-a~tdulcntiy
endorses an instrument. except ttt the extent th;tt a party taking the irrstrulneilt
for value fails to exercise ordinary care and tltereby contributes to the loss. The Llistrict
Court found that Yarbro produced iio cvidence to rctiitc hfFCl;'s factua! :~ssertionsthat
blcL.can was an emplopec ei~lrustcd
wiili responsibility ii,r processing instrunlcnts and that
'1.IFC'I: had exercised ordinary care in accepting the instruniei-its for payrncnt. Thcrcfore, i t
entered sumrnary jrtcigmcnt on the breach of warranty clairn. On appeal, Yarbro argues that
blcl..ean's actual or apparent authority to process instruments and \vhether MFCC cxcrciscci
ordinary care, \\ere questiotis of fact which precluded surnmary jirdg~ncnt.
'33 VlFC1 argued to tlic District Court, and also to this <'our( on appeal, that while
Y;irbro was indeed responsible for thc actions of irs own employees, and illat 'ilii('l;
exercised ordinar;. care in taking the instruments for payment, it ivas unnecessary to reach
these issties bccausc the law iioes riot provide Yarbro a breach of iiiirrar~tqren~edyiigainst
blF<:C in the first instance. X2FCl:'s analysis is correct.
7'34 Scction 3(i-4-207(1 j, hlC'A, provides that a ctisti:mer or cc>licciinghank that tra:isfers
an instru~ncnt reccives consideration therefor makcs certain wal-ranties "to tlic trar'isfcrec
and
12
~ , ~* .
and to ;ii~y subscyiicnt coilccriiig i ~ i i n ~ . I'hus. rmnsikrors, who ipiaci: ui- r;.arlsCk'i?ian
insrri~;nent ividlii~the i of C O I I I ~ I I C I C ~ir;i:i?i-?ciioi~s
~~~ i.cpcalciily iccicfia i h i
ii~strurncni pay il~crcon
and rcaehcs tl1c payor bank whicli m i i k ~ ti?,: final
until the instrun~c!it s
payrncni from ihc customer's iiccount, warrant to their transkrccs, who are thoic to vdlhon?
they pass the insrrument and from ~vlianl as
111ey receive payn~ciit, folio\?vs:that ti~cy,
the
aanslerors, are entitlcd to enforce the instrumertt for payment, that rhc signatures on ihc
that the instrument ltas riot beer! aiicrcci. that the
iilstrurnent arc authentic and authori~cd,
instrument is not subject to a dcfensc or claim of recouprnent undcr 5 30-3-305. ?vii';\ :ad
that lllc transkror is rtot atvare ofali it~solvcncy
proceeding which mayafCeci paylienr on the
instrunrent. '4 t r a ~ ~ s f i r rcceivcs thc instrun~cnt rnakcs payntent to the transficror c.in tl:e
cc aild
basis of these m~arra~ities, is entitled to makc a breiicli of wan-ant? claim against i11c
and
transfer-or i n the cvcnt the instrunicnr is later determined to he kaudulcni anti a rcimbnrsing
payment to tlic transferee is denied.
735 Clrrder these provisions, and tlic facts liere; Yarbro is not a transt'ercc. It dici not
receive the instru~nents tltc associated transfer wa:-raniies from MFC'II, a11ddid iiot make
and
pay~ncrit b1FC'l.i in consideration tbr the insir~imcnts.As i'arhro rcccived no instrument
to
tvarranty from MFi't.'. it is not entitled. undcr thc tcrms oi'the statiitc, to bring a
itr t-t-~lnsfer
cause of action for brcach ofthar vvarral~tyagainst MFC'I.,. Thc(I[
'(' proridcs i.clnc.dics to
ofir;inskr ..i.xrrar!ty against \:ti'<'!'
Yarbro for the losses it sustained. but brcacl~ is not one
t~l~lll.
, .
or? tlic groiinds tiliir 'iilrbri; was rcsponsib!c for h4ci~ian'sactiol;.; tinder c: 3~-.>-4;.. ."it""ii.
""^ -,()
i
Altl~ougli basis oi'thc District ('ciiirt's s u r n m a r y j u d g i ~ ~iirdcrt was iniorrcit, i t riacl~cil
i!ic c~~
. .
ijic COI.I.CCT restilt. if thc district coui-t is comcct iii its concliisions. I t rs ii?n:nii!crial what
icasons ucre ;issigned thcrcibr. I,(iiir.ic 1,. M. & L. fic'olti, Ch,li>.
(I()??). 15'1 ?ilo~!i.304. 4081
498 P.2d 1102. 1194. l'he District Cou~n
correc!ly concluded that sumrnaryjiidgil~eiit
on
Y a r b r i ~ breach of n.arranty claim against MFCU was appropriate
'~
737 1. Did the District Court err in denying Yarbro's motion for a change of venue?
818 Varbro argues tllat the District Court e n c d in denying the motion for a cirange of
Lenue it filed, asserting tllat because livnorablc F d i ~ a r d
?i?cl.,ean \vas a potential ~virncs.;in
the case, a conflict of interest was presented that justified rnovirig the case to ani,thcrj~iiiiciai
district. Section 25-2-201, ill("/\. states w l ~ c n
change of venue is r-ecluircd:
,,
Ihe court or judge ruusr, oil motion, cliangc the place of trial in the foilo~ving
cases:
(1) 1~1ll1en
the C O L I I I ~des~gilatedrn
~ the complaint rs not thc proper
count):
(2) u hen there is reasoli to believc that an i r n p a ~ i ~ta i~ a ca11nothe had
r l
therein;
(3)nlren the cou\.enlcnce of a ~tncsscs the ends of just~ce
and \~cw!dbe
pr omoted b> the change
Yarbro's motion was based upon 5 25-2-201(2), MC'A. Yarbro asserts that an impartitil trial
cannot hc had in Clissoi~!aC'cxirity because Kathryn M/iri.e.*r: is Judge Mci2enn's iiiccc.
Katltryn Mcl.ca!i is a party " tiis action.' aird i~icigc
iiecal~sc 3 hlci.eiin i s ajiicigc iir .blissiii!a
C'o:jncy. V;rrbro assefls that ii is a conflict cif intcrcsi h r 1-ic>::orabi;- John tV. i.aiion to
presidi: aver this mattes* as Judge Larsun and Judge ?Mci,can work ii? same courihouse
thc
and are judges i n tile same jadiciai district
739 Yarbro filed its motion for change of vcnuc on Jul! 7, Z(iii!). ...
.CZI:CI ",. answer liitd
s
h c ~ i tileti cln September 10, 1999. A plaintiff must raise zhe issue of i-enur \vithin 20 tkiys
l
of the filing of tile dcfendanr's answer or
time more than 20 days after the last pleading has been filcit
wlieriever at S O I ~ C
an event occurs which thereafier atyords good cause to believe that an
inipartiai trial cannor be had under ground 2 of said section 25-2-201, and
competent proof is submitted to the court that such cause of impartiality did
not exist \vithin the 20-day period aftcr tire last plcadiilg tvas filed, then the
court may entertain a niotion to change the place of trial under ground 2 of
section 25-2-201 within 20 days after that latcr event occurs.
Rulc 12(b)(iiif, h1.R.Civ.P. Yarhro's motion for charrgc of venue was not filed within 2(J
days of MFC'l.'s ans\vcr. Moreover, Yarbro has not pointed to any evcnt that i>ccurrcd20
days before Yarbro filed its niotion for change of vcnue that establishes good caiisc to
be1ici.e that an in~pal-ti;~l cannot hc had i n klissouia County. To thc contrary, the rccortl
trial
~ctlccts Yarbro learned ofthe rclatrc>nshtphct\\ccci Kathrqn ClcLean and Judge \lei edrl
that
in rbc fall oF lOO9, yet dici not file its motion for chainge of venue until July 3 , 2000, iong
after expiratio11o f tlrc 20 days provided by Kr~lc12, \/Z.ii.Civ.P. Bccilrise Yarhro's rnoiion
for change ofvei~ue not tintelq, ihc District Cotit? correctly denied the morion
was
'i\!t!iough not ilnincii in the captioil, Mcl.ean ~vasJoinci1 the action as a third party deiei1iia:;t.
iil
15
The IIistrict Court prciperiy granted summary judgmcnt in ht:ar o f %.jli:Ci; or1
Yarhro's coi~versionand brcaciz ofwarntr~ty
clairtls. anti C O I - ~ C C Idl"ilii3d V ~ l j 3 i . 0i ~l ~ l j ~ i ?
~~ i O
fix change of venue. itsjudgmcnt is aiiinncd.
We concur:
Justice Tcrry N. I'rie\r;cilcr concurring
ffj41 I concur .with thc 111ajorityOpinion.
152 i write scparatcly to note that while I agree s i t h the majority's rcjeciion of thc
disco\-ery doctrine as applied to the facts in this case, I would not foreclose possiblc
a~plieation that doctrine to conversion actions presented under other circumstances.
of
y43 The discovel-y doctrine is an equitable principle which may depend on the
circumstmccs of each case. For example, in spite of niy great respect for the state of Iowa:
I would not follow Husker !t7erv~7 v. :2lirJtush State Bank (Iowa 1090)i 460 N.\V.2d 476.
Co.
I mcntiort tliat because it is apparently cited with approval in the majority Opinion.
744 Except for this qualificatiorr, I otlrci-wise agree with thc majorit;' Opinion.