Na. 12757

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

1975

STANLEY and LUELLA HORACEK, husband and w i f e ,

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

WILLIAM and VELMA HUDSON, husband and w i f e ,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r t c t , Honorable Nat A l l e n , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Ceunsel of Record :

For Appellants :

Robert L. Stephens argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

For Respondents:

Michael J. Whalen argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana

Submitted: A p r i l 8, 1975

: ~ecided AU G 5 :975 Filed: AQG 5 15 y Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.

This i s an a p p e a l from a judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , M u s s e l s h e l l County, Hon. Nat A l l e n , s i t t i n g w i t h o u t a j u r y . The

judgment denied r e l i e f i n a q u i e t t i t l e a c t i o n t o p l a i n t i f f s S t a n l e y and LuElla Horacek, husband and w i f e , and q u i e t i n g t i t l e

i n d e f e n d a n t s William and Velma Hudson, husband and w i f e . The r e c o r d c o n t a i n s a long r e c i t a l of f a c t s l e a d i n g back

t o t h e a n t e c e d e n t s of t h e p a r t i e s through whom each c l a i m s t i t l e t o the property i n question. Two l o t s a r e i n v o l v e d , Lots 9 and 1 0 , Block 3, O r i g i n a l Townsite of F a r r a l l , an o l d s u b d i v i s i o n

s o u t h of Roundup, Montana.

P l a i n t i f f s c l a i m t i t l e through one Leo Sedlacek who pur- chased and r e s i d e d on Lots 5 , 6 , 7 , and 8 , Block 3 of t h e sub-

d i v i s i o n and which a b u t t h e l o t s involved h e r e , Lots 9 and 10. Record t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 was h e l d by Dominic Vescovi and

h i s wife, Jennie. Defendants c l a i m t i t l e through Dominic and J e n n i e Vescovi . Here, t h e c o n t r o l l i n g q u e s t i o n i s - - - i s t h e r e evidence

t o s u p p o r t p l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m t h a t Leo Sedlacek a c q u i r e d t i t l e

t o t h e l o t s from Dominic and J e n n i e Vescovi through a d v e r s e possession? The p r o p e r t y was a t a l l times a s s e s s e d t o Dominic and

J e n n i e Vescovi and t h e t a x n o t i c e s were addressed t o them, i n c a r e of Sedlacek. Sedlacek paid t h e t a x e s f o r t h e r e q u i r e d

number of y e a r s . However, d e f e n d a n t s contend t h a t t h i s was t h e agreed l e a s e payment f o r t h e use of t h e land t o grow garden pro- ducts. P l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r c h a l l e n g e of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s judgment t h a t Sedlacek had n o t a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o Lots 9 and 10 through a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , maintain s d l a c e k ' s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e

p r o p e r t y met a l l r e q u i r e m e n t s of Montana law t o e s t a b l i s h a d v e r s e possession. P l a i n t i f f s p o i n t out t h e r e i s no f a c t u a l d i s p u t e t h a t Sedlacek a c t u a l l y and continuously occupied t h e land i n question f o r a t l e a s t f i f t e e n years p r i o r t o h i s death. Section 93-2510, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f s a l s o a s s e r t Sedlacek enclosed t h e land i n q u e s t i o n w i t h a s u b s t a n t i a l e n c l o s u r e and c u l t i v a t e d i t a n n u a l l y by p r e p a r i n g and growing h i s t r u c k garden. Section 93-2511, R.C.M. 1947. F u r t h e r , Sedlacek paid a l l of t h e p r o p e r t y taxes. S e c t i o n 93-2513, R.C.M. 1947. P l a i n t i f f s argue t h e r e has been no proof t h a t a l a n d l o r d - t e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e v e r e x i s t e d except f o r hearsay testimony from one of d e f e n d a n t s f w i t n e s s e s , admitted over o b j e c t i o n of p l a i n t i f f s ; t h a t t h e continuous, unexplained and u n i n t e r r u p t e d u s e of t h e land i s s u f f i c i e n t l y adverse t o s u s t a i n t h e i r claim. P l a i n t i f f s presented w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d Leo Sedlacek l e a s e d a p o r t i o n of Lots 9 and 10 t o them d u r i n g h i s l i f e t i m e . They f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t s e d l a c e k f s l e a s i n g of t h e land and u l t i m a t e l y h i s conveying t h e land a r e c l e a r unequivocal a c t s m a n i f e s t i n g an i n t e n t t o d i s p o s s e s s t h e p r i o r owner. F i n a l l y , p l a i n t i f f s argue t h a t Brown v. C a r t w r i g h t , 163 Mont. 139, 515 P.2d 684, s t a n d s f o r t h e p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e q u e s t i o n of adverse possession i s one of i n t e n t of t h e p a r t i e s t o be discovered from a l l t h e circumstances. Further, t h a t t h e t r i a l court erred i n finding t h a t p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o c a r r y t h e burden of e s t a b l i s h i n g t i t l e by adverse p o s s e s s i o n . I n support they c i t e Wilson v. Chestnut, 164 Mont. 484, 525 P.2d 24, 31 %.Rep. 606, a s a u t h o r i t y t h a t t h e burden r e s t s on defendants. Here, t h e l e g a l t i t l e a t a l l times d u r i n g t h e a l l e g e d adverse possession was i n Dominic Vescovi and h i s w i f e , J e n n i e . Under t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 93-2507, R.C.M. 1947, occupation of p r o p e r t y by any person o t h e r than t h e l e g a l t i t l e h o l d e r i s deemed t o have been under and i n s u b o r d i n a t i o n t o t h e l e g a l t i t l e . Where d e f e n d a n t s , a s h e r e , show t h e y a r e s u c c e s s o r s t o t h e owner o f t h e l e g a l t i t l e , t h e y have made a prima f a c i e c a s e on t h e i r c r o s s c l a i m and t h e burden i s t h e n c a s t upon p l a i n t i f f s t o e s t a b - l i s h t h e i r adverse possession. Smith v . Whitney, 105 Mont. 523, 74 P.2d 450. The e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e a t t h e v e r y b e s t i s i n c o n f l i c t a s i t r e l a t e s t o t h e matter o f h o s t i l e p o s s e s s i o n by p l a i n t i f f s . Under such c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h i s Court w i l l view t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and uphold i t s f i n d i n g u n l e s s t h e evidence preponderates a g a i n s t t h e defendants. Johnson v. S i l v e r Bow County, 1 5 1 Mont. 283, 443 P.2d 6. W do n o t d i s a g r e e w i t h t h e r a t i o n a l e i n Brown, r e l i e d on e by p l a i n t i f f s , however, a c a s u a l r e a d i n g o f Brown d e m o n s t r a t e s t h a t t h e f a c t s t h e r e a r e c l e a r l y d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from t h e i n s t a n t case. I n Wilson, c i t e d by p l a i n t i f f s t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h e burden with o f p r o o f r e s t s on d e f e n d a n t s , t h i s Court was d e a l i n g / a n a l l e g e d p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t t o u s e a n easement and was d e t e r m i n i n g where t h e burden o f p r o o f might b e from t i m e t o time i n such a c a s e . There i s n o t h i n g i n Wilson t h a t c a n b e c o n s t r u e d t o h o l d t h a t t h e burden o f p r o v i n g h i s own t i t l e d o e s n o t f a l l f i r s t t o any c l a i m a n t . Lunceford v . Trenk, 163 Mont. 504, 518 P.2d 266, q u o t e d w i t h a p p r o v a l i n Wilson. There i s s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e t r i a l c o u r t and r e v i e w i n g t h e e v i d e n c e i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y , w e f i n d i t does n o t p r e p o n d e r a t e w i t h any c l a r i t y a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s . The judgment i s a f f i r m e d .

/' J u s t i c e W concur: e

A, 1 . A$;-.- - - /

,/$ /*

< - e ---------,,f---------------- L

\ LP---

Chief J u s t i c e