Smith v. Johnson ( 1997 )

No. 97-
:1 THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
ALEX E. SMITH and TRUDY L. SMITH,
husband and wife,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
ROBERT L. JOHNSON and ANITA A. JOHNSON,
husband and wfe.
Defendants and Appellants
APPEAL FROM: District Courl of the Tenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Fergus,
Honorable Wm. Nels Swandal, Judge Presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
Robert L. Johnson, Attorney at Law, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondents:
Michael Ridgcway, Attorney at Law, Hubble & Ridgeway,
Stanford, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 23, 1997
Decided: December 3 0 , 1 9 9 7
Justice Lt'. W~lliamLeaphart delivered the Opinion of the Court.
P~trsuantto Section I, Paragraph 3(c), Montana Supreme Court 1995 Internal
Operating Rules, the following decision shall not be cited as precedent and shall be published
by its filing as a public document with the Clerk of the Supren~e
Court and by a report of its
result to State Reporter Publishing Company and West Group.
This is an appeal from the Tenth Judicial District Court's February 23, 1997 order
dismissing Count 11 and its May 2, 1997 order striking the Appellants Robert L. and Anita
A. Johnson's (Johnsons') amended answer, cross-claim, and demand for jury trial and
denying their request to expunge certain portions of the court's "Explanatory Comment."
Respondents Alex and Trudy Smith (Smiths) purchased real property on a contract
for deed fi.oni the Johnsons. The Johnsons contracted to provide "guaranteed access" to the
property. However, at the time of the transaction, there was no guaranteed access to the
property. The only access onto the property was via a road crossing over property owned by
a neighbor of the Smiths. The Johnsons took the position that they were only required to
provide the access once the contract had been paid in full.
To obtain the guaranteed access, the Smiths sued the Johnsons, requesting that the
court allow them to prepay the contract and require the Johnsons to provide the guaranteed
access (Count I). In Count 11 of the complaint, the Smiths sought to quiet title to a separate
road which the Johnsons were using to access the Johnsons' residence and which crossed
property owned by the Smiths. The parties filed cross-motions for sulnmary judgment.
At the hearing on the motions for summary judgment, the Johnsons represented that
they had the necessary easement which would provide the access that the Smiths were
demanding. The Smiths reviewed the easement document and determined that it was
satisfactory. Mr. Johnson then prepared a stipulation dismissing Count I. There was no
request by either party for fees or costs at that time. Mr. Johnson, an attorney representing
himself and his wife, and counsel for the Smiths signed the stipulation and, pursuant to this
stipulation, the court dismissed Count I with prejudice.
With regard to Count 11, the court denied the Johnsons' motion for summaiy judgment
and ordered the parties to mediate. When the parties were unable to mediate Count 11, the
Smiths offered the Johnsons an easement over the road in question. However, the Johnsons
would not accept the easement unless the Smiths agreed to pay the Johnsons' costs and
attorney fees. The Smiths refused to agree to pay the fees and costs. Instead they, on their
own motion, dismissed Count I1 with prejudice. The Johnsons objected and requested fees
and costs relating to both Counts I and 11. The District Court granted the Smiths' motion to
dismiss Count 11 with prejudice and denied the Johnsons' claim for costs and fees with an
explanatory comment which stated, inter alia: "With the settlement [on Count I], plaintiffs
prevailed on the easement issue, and defendants prevailed on the prepayment issue." The
Johnsons' various post-judgment motions to expunge this language were denied, and the
Johnsons appealed to this Court.
On appeal, the Johnsons appear to contend that they are entitled to attorney fees as
prevailing partics under the provisios~s the contract for deed. The stipulation of dismissal,
of
however, does not provide that either party prevailed nor does it provide that either party is
entstled to attorney fees. The partles are bound by that stipulahon and order of d~smtssal.The
Distrlct Court's denial of the Johnsons' request for costs and attorney fees as to Count I is
affirmed.
Count I1 of the amended complaint is a quiet title claim. As such, it does not come
within the purview of the contract provision allowing attorney fees to the prevailing party in
an action to enforce the terms of the agreement. The District Court did not e n in denying
attorney fees in the dismissal of Count 11.
The Johnsons also ask this Court to remand to the District Coart with instructions to
expunge that part of the "Explanatory Comment" in which the court, notlng that the Sm~ths
prevailed on the easement issue and the Johnsons prevailed on the prepayment issue,
concluded there was no prevailing party entitled to attorney fees. Johnson is apparently
concerned that the court's explanatory comment might give nse to further litigation.
The Johnsons have cited no authority whereby this Court can edit or dictate the terms
of the District Court's rationale. We can affirm decisions of thc district court regardless of
whether the court reached the decision for the right reasons. Clark v. Eagle Systems, lnc.
(1906), 279 Mont. 279,927 P.2d 995. Since we have affirmed the District Court's denial of
attorney fees, it matters not why the court denied the fees. At worst, the court's comments
could be considered dicta. Furthermore, since the court dismissed both counts of the
complaint with prejudice, the Johnsons' fears of futui-c litigation are unfounded. The
Johnsons' request for a remand is denied.
The Smiths have requested that, pursuant to Rule 32, M.R.App.P., we Impose
reasonable attorney fees upon the Johnsons for filing an appeal without substantla1 or
reasonable grounds. That request IS denied, and the appeal is affirmed with each party to pay
their own costs and fees.
Justice"
We concur:
December 30, 1997
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the followrng certified order mas sent bq United States mail, prepaid. to the
follo\\ing named:
Robert L. Johnson
Attorney at Law
SUITE 507 MONTANA BUILDING
LEWISTOWN M 1 59457
Michael Ridgeway
Attomeq at Law
PO BOX 556
STANFORD MT 59479-0556
ED SMITH
CLERK OF THE SUPREME COURT
STATE OF MONTANA
BY:. +&
Deputy