Weldon v. First Citizens Bank of Bi , 50 State Rptr. 807 ( 1993 )


Menu:
  •                             NO.    93-082
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1993
    RICHARD A. WELDON and
    MONICA A. WELDON,
    Plaintiffs and Appellants,
    V.
    FIRST CITIZENS BANK OF BILLINGS,
    a Montana Corporation,
    Defendant and Respondent.
    APPEAL FROM:   District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
    In and for the County of Yellowstone,
    The Honorable William J. Speare, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellant:
    W. Corbin Howard, Attorney at Law,
    Billings, Montana: David A. Klibaner,
    Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
    For Respondent:
    Carey E. Matovich, Matovich, Addy & Keller,
    Billings, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs:   June 1, 1993
    Decided:   July 8, 1993
    Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., delivered the opinion of the Court.
    Appellants Richard A. Weldon and Monica A. Weldon appeal from
    the judgment of the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone
    County, granting a motion to dismiss their complaint for failure to
    state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
    We affirm.
    The following issue is dispositive of this case:
    Did the District Court err in finding that the First Citizens
    Bank of Billings had no obligation to ensure that all the required
    deeds were placed in escrow by Double S Investors?
    On November 16, 1983, the Weldons sold their 1625 acres of
    land to Double S Investors under a contract for deed.      The Weldons
    and Double S Investors chose to employ First Citizens Bank as the
    escrow agent in this transaction.
    In accordance with the contract for deed, the 1625 acres of
    land were      subdivided   into   67 twenty-acre parcels,    and the
    corresponding deeds were signed by the Weldons.         The Bank was
    required by contract, as escrow agent, to surrender each deed to
    Double S Investors upon receipt of the required purchase price.
    However,    before the deeds were ever placed in escrow, Double S
    Investors recorded eight of the deeds with the county clerk and
    recorder and sold them to a third party.    Only 59 deeds reached the
    escrow account at the Bank.
    The Weldons filed an action against Double S Investors in
    1985, which was not settled until October 1, 1991.         On June 12,
    1992,    the Weldons filed an action against the Bank alleging
    2
    (1) breach of fiduciary duties, (2) breach of contract--common law
    duties, (3) breach of contract--covenant of good faith and fair
    dealing, and (4) breach of contract--Montana statutes.
    The Bank responded to these allegations on July 16, 1992, with
    a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim,             or in the
    alternative,    summary judgment based on their contention that the
    statute of limitations had already run on every claim presented by
    the Weldons.
    The District Court found that the Bank was not under any
    obligation to inform the Weldons of Double S Investors' failure to
    deliver all of the deeds.        Although the contractual documents
    consisted of a November 16, 1983, contract for deed, a December 19,
    1983,     addendum to the contract,    and an escrow agreement, the
    District Court found that none of these documents required the Bank
    to ensure that Double S Investors placed all of the deeds in
    escrow.     Upon this finding, the District Court granted the Bank's
    motion to dismiss.     Because of this decision, the issue of whether
    or not the statute of limitations had run on the Weldons' claims
    was not reached by the District Court.        The   Weldons   appeal   the
    granting of the motion to dismiss.
    Did the District Court err in finding that the Bank had no
    obligation to ensure that all the required deeds were placed in
    escrow by Double S Investors?
    In the case at bar, there is no actual written provision in
    the escrow agreement obligating the Bank to verify the accuracy of
    the documents or to notify the Weldons of the status of the deeds
    3
    placed in escrow. Accordingly, we hold that there was no breach of
    a contract provision.
    The Weldons also claimed that the Bank breached various
    implied contractual and fiduciary duties.         Although in Dulan v.
    Montana National Bank of Roundup (1983),       
    203 Mont. 177
    , 182, 
    661 P.2d 28
    , 30, we held that the escrow agent owes fiduciary duties to
    its principals, the fiduciary duty does not require the agent to
    exceed the limits of the escrow instructions to the extent of
    notifying parties to the escrow of any suspicious facts or
    circumstances that come to the agent's attention.       28 Am. Jur. 2d
    Supp. Escrow 5 16 (1993).   In the case at bar, the fact that eight
    of the deeds were converted by Double S Investors was not even
    brought to the attention of the Bank--all the more reason to
    conclude that there was no breach of an implied or fiduciary duty.
    The Bank was not made aware of the missing deeds because the
    deeds had not yet been delivered into escrow.       They were actually
    converted by Double S Investors before reaching the Bank.      In order
    for an instrument to operate as an escrow, delivery to a third
    party, such as an escrow agent, who is not a party to the transfer
    transaction, is required.    In re Hume's Estate (1954), 
    128 Mont. 223
    , 229,    
    272 P.2d 999
    , 1002.       In Jurgens v. Abraham (D. Mass.
    1985), 
    616 F. Supp. 1381
    , 1385, the court granted a motion to
    dismiss brought by the escrow agent, holding that the agent had no
    duties or liabilities until he received a deposit in escrow.
    Similarly,    the appellate court in Southall       v. Security Title
    Insurance & Guarantee Company (Cal. App. 2d 1952), 
    246 P.2d 74
    ,
    4
    75-76, concluded that the escrow agent was under no duty to secure
    necessary missing documents.    In the case at bar, the Bank did not
    have a fiduciary responsibility to account for the missing deeds,
    especially prior to their delivery into escrow.
    We hold that the District Court did not err in finding that
    the Bank had no obligation to ensure that all the deeds were placed
    in escrow.   The motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), M.R.Civ.P.,
    was properly granted since the Weldons are not entitled to relief
    under any of the facts set forth in their claim.     Mogan v. City of
    Harlem (1987),   
    227 Mont. 435
    , 437, 
    739 P.2d 491
    , 492-93.
    We affirm.
    Justice
    We concur:
    Chief Sustice
    July 8, 1993
    CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
    I hereby certify that the following order was sent by United States mail, prepaid, to the following
    named:
    W. CORBIN HOWARD
    Attorney at Law
    P.O. Box 1117
    Billings, MT 59103-7177
    DAVID A. KLIBANER
    Attorney at Law
    2401 Fifteenth Street, Suite #290
    Denver, CO 80202
    Carey E. Matovich
    MATOVICH, ADDY & KELLER, P.C.
    225 Petroleum Building
    2812 Fist Ave. North
    Billings, MT 59101
    ED SMITH
    CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
    STAT@ OF MONTANA
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 93-082

Citation Numbers: 259 Mont. 305, 50 State Rptr. 807

Judges: Gray, Harrison, Hunt, Trieweiler, Turnage

Filed Date: 7/8/1993

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023