BASTON v. BASTON, No. DA 10-0047.

Docket NºNo. DA 10-0047.
Citation357 Mont. 470, 2010 MT 207, 240 P.3d 643
Case DateSeptember 28, 2010
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Montana

357 Mont. 470
240 P.3d 643
2010 MT 207

Jeffrey C. BASTON and Sharon Baston, Plaintiffs,
v.
Carol BASTON, Defendant and Cross-Appellant.

Kurt Haeker, Cross-Appellee,
v.
Carol Baston, Defendant and Cross-Appellant.

No. DA 10-0047.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Aug. 25, 2010.
Decided Sept. 28, 2010.


240 P.3d 644

For Defendant and Cross-Appellant: Jared M. Le Fevre, Monique S. Waddington, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, Montana.

For Cross-Appellee: Kurt Haeker (Self-Represented), Billings, Montana.

Justice PATRICIA O. COTTER delivered the Opinion of the Court.

357 Mont. 471

¶ 1 Kurt Haeker's (Haeker) unopposed motion to voluntarily withdraw his appeal was granted by this Court on April 16, 2010. Therefore, the only issues currently before us are those brought on cross-appeal by Carol Baston (Baston). Baston appeals the monetary judgment entered against her by the Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County. We reverse the portion of the District Court's order directing a lien be placed on Baston's property, vacate the monetary judgment, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

240 P.3d 645

ISSUES

¶ 2 A restatement of Baston's issues on cross-appeal are:

¶ 3 1. Did the District Court err when it went beyond the pleadings and pretrial order in awarding, sua sponte, monetary damages that were neither requested nor at issue during trial; and

¶ 4 2. If the District Court did not err in awarding monetary damages, did the court err in awarding damages beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

¶ 5 Because resolution of the first issue is dispositive, we decline to address the second issue.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 6 In July 1949, Baston and her husband Vernon acquired title to the following real property:

Lots 12 and 13, Block 21, Yellowstone Addition to the City of Billings, Yellowstone County, Montana, according to the official plat thereof on file and of record in the Office of the Clerk and

357 Mont. 472

Recorder of Yellowstone County, Montana.

They held title to this property located on St. John's Avenue (hereinafter referred to as the St. John's home) as joint owners with rights of survivorship. Vernon died in 1998 and title of the property passed to Baston. While Baston has resided in Wyoming since 1987, she has also retained title to the St. John's home since 1949. This home is the subject of the current controversy.

¶ 7 In June 1987, Baston permitted Jeffrey and Sharon-her son and daughter-in-law-to move into the St. John's home. Jeffrey and Sharon resided in the home from 1987 until 2006, during which time they made various alterations and repairs to the home. However, they paid Baston no rent.

¶ 8 In 2006, after living in the home rent-free for twenty years, Jeffrey and Sharon filed suit against Baston in the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, to acquire title to the St. John's home under the alternative theories of adverse possession, gift, and estoppel. Neither the amended complaint nor the final pretrial order alleged that Baston owed Jeffrey and Sharon monetary damages for the alterations and repairs they made on the home during their tenure. During the trial, as evidence of their claim of adverse possession, Jeffrey and Sharon presented over 500 receipts for various alterations and repairs they claimed were made on the home during their twenty-year tenure. Baston countered at trial that some of the expenses were for work done on her Wyoming home. Nevertheless, at no point in the pleadings or during trial did Jeffrey and Sharon seek reimbursement from Baston for these expenses.

¶ 9 At the close of trial on August 24, 2007, the District Court concluded Jeffrey and Sharon had failed to demonstrate that they acquired any ownership interest in the home. Notwithstanding this finding, the District Court sua sponte awarded Jeffrey and Sharon $33,055.48 plus 10% interest per annum for the alterations and repairs made to the St. John's home. The District Court also issued an oral ruling that the judgment would be tied to the home and could not be executed upon until, and unless, the property was conveyed by Baston. This oral ruling was omitted from the court's subsequent September 4, 2007 written order. Neither Jeffrey and Sharon nor Baston filed a notice of entry of judgment, as required by M.R. Civ. P. 77(d).

¶ 10 Two years later, despite the absence of notice of entry of judgment, the Clerk of District Court for the Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County issued a writ of execution on the monetary judgment against Baston for $40,024.77, the sum of the

357 Mont. 473

original judgment plus interest through October 8, 2009. In November 2009, Haeker purportedly purchased Jeffrey and Sharon's monetary judgment in the St. John's home, although this acquisition is not formally reflected in the District Court record. In December 2009, Haeker tried to force a sheriff's sale of the St. John's home to take place on January 26, 2010.

¶ 11 On December 28, 2009, Baston filed timely objections to the sheriff's sale, sought clarification of the District Court's September 4, 2007 order, and requested a hearing.

240 P.3d 646

The court held a hearing on January 5, 2010, and all parties were present. On January 11, 2010, the District Court entered an order vacating the sheriff's sale and amending its 2007 written...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 practice notes
  • Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, Inc., No. DA 13–0127.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • March 12, 2014
    ...notice. “[D]ue Process requires a reasonable notice as to give everyone interested their opportunity to be heard.” Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643 (citation omitted). A review of the record shows that New Hope raised fiduciary duty and trust theory in its pl......
  • Mont. Dep't of Natural Res. & Conservation v. ABBCO Invs., LLC, No. DA 11–0759.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • August 28, 2012
    ...has held that “due process requires a reasonable notice as to give everyone interested their opportunity to be heard.” Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 474, 240 P.3d 643 (quoting Country Estates Homeowners Assn. v. McMillan, 269 Mont. 131, 133, 887 P.2d 249, 250 (1994)). ......
  • In re Estate of Quirin, No. DA 14–0394.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...any reasons why we should do so now. Instead, she recommends this rule in conclusory statements and bare citation to Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643 ; and Weimar v. Lyons, 2007 MT 182, 338 Mont. 242, 164 P.3d 922. As these cases do not stand for such a rule and ar......
  • Watson v. Devra West, No. DA 10–0447.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • April 5, 2011
    ...2002. Due process of law requires reasonable notice so as to give every interested party the opportunity to be heard. Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643. A plaintiff generally cannot recover beyond the case stated in his or her or complaint, because fair notice......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
8 cases
  • Ministry v. Faith Lutheran Church of Great Falls, Inc., No. DA 13–0127.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • March 12, 2014
    ...notice. “[D]ue Process requires a reasonable notice as to give everyone interested their opportunity to be heard.” Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643 (citation omitted). A review of the record shows that New Hope raised fiduciary duty and trust theory in its pl......
  • Mont. Dep't of Natural Res. & Conservation v. ABBCO Invs., LLC, No. DA 11–0759.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • August 28, 2012
    ...has held that “due process requires a reasonable notice as to give everyone interested their opportunity to be heard.” Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 474, 240 P.3d 643 (quoting Country Estates Homeowners Assn. v. McMillan, 269 Mont. 131, 133, 887 P.2d 249, 250 (1994)). ......
  • In re Estate of Quirin, No. DA 14–0394.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • May 19, 2015
    ...any reasons why we should do so now. Instead, she recommends this rule in conclusory statements and bare citation to Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643 ; and Weimar v. Lyons, 2007 MT 182, 338 Mont. 242, 164 P.3d 922. As these cases do not stand for such a rule and ar......
  • Watson v. Devra West, No. DA 10–0447.
    • United States
    • Montana United States State Supreme Court of Montana
    • April 5, 2011
    ...2002. Due process of law requires reasonable notice so as to give every interested party the opportunity to be heard. Baston v. Baston, 2010 MT 207, ¶ 18, 357 Mont. 470, 240 P.3d 643. A plaintiff generally cannot recover beyond the case stated in his or her or complaint, because fair notice......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT