Hinderman v. Krivor

• Decision Date: 07 December 2010
• Docket Number: No. DA 10-0201.,DA 10-0201.
• Citation: 358 Mont. 111,2010 MT 230,244 P.3d 306
• Parties: Tom HINDERMAN and Gloria Schnell, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. G. Allan KRIVOR, Rocky Mountain Land, and Northern Rockies Corporation, Defendants and Appellees.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

244 P.3d 306
358 Mont. 111
2010 MT 230

Tom HINDERMAN and Gloria Schnell, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
G. Allan KRIVOR, Rocky Mountain Land, and Northern Rockies Corporation, Defendants and Appellees.

No. DA 10-0201.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Sept. 1, 2010.
Decided Nov. 1, 2010.
Rehearing Denied Dec. 7, 2010.

244 P.3d 308

For Appellants: D. Scott Manning, Montana Property Law, PC, Missoula, Montana.

For Appellees: Matthew Baldassin, Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, PC, Missoula, Montana.

Justice MICHAEL E. WHEAT delivered the Opinion of the Court.

358 Mont. 113

¶ 1 The Fourth Judicial District Court, Mineral County, granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment, enforcing the settlement agreement entered into between the parties. We affirm.

BACKGROUND

¶ 2 In 2003, Plaintiffs entered into agreements to purchase Lots 7 ¹ and 8 of the Cayuse Ridge Ranch subdivision owned by Defendants. The purchase agreement for Lot 8 specifically noted matters of record, including a "Montana Trust Indenture by and between Larsen, [sic] & Northern Rockies Corporation, Grantor...." Defendants conveyed Lot 8 to Plaintiffs by warranty deed in March 2003. The Lot 8 warranty deed guaranteed that the property was "free from all encumbrances, EXCEPT ... other matters of record...." Defendants had recorded two mortgages on Lot 8 before Plaintiffs acquired the lot: (1) a mortgage to Northern Rockies Corporation, mortgagor, and Larsons, mortgagees, in May 2002 and (2) a mortgage to Northern Rockies Corporation, mortgagor, and Krivors, mortgagees, in July 2002.

¶ 3 After Plaintiffs acquired the lots, a dispute arose between the parties regarding the installation of power, and Plaintiffs filed suit in 2005, alleging breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and violations of the Montana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Act.

¶ 4 In 2006, Plaintiffs purchased an additional parcel, Lot 10, from the Draves. The Lot 10 warranty deed noted that the property was "free from all encumbrances except a lien to Rocky Mountain Land/Northern Rockies Corporation." Defendants had also recorded a mortgage on the lot in July 2002 to Northern Rockies Corporation, mortgagor, and Krivors, mortgagees.

¶ 5 While the lawsuit was pending, Plaintiffs, on the advice of

358 Mont. 114

counsel, quit making payments on Lots 8 and 10. Consequently, Defendants initiated foreclosure proceedings on those lots.

¶ 6 The parties met for a settlement conference in June of 2007 and settled. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants agreed to postpone the July 2007 foreclosure sale of Lots 8 and 10 to allow time for Plaintiffs to pay off both lots at a discounted amount. However, if Plaintiffs did not pay the discounted amount by September 7, 2007, they would then be responsible for paying the full purchase price within three days, or Defendants would foreclose on the lots. The parties also agreed to sign a mutual release of all claims and dismiss their claims with prejudice. Both parties entered the settlement with the advice and approval of counsel.

¶ 7 Plaintiffs failed to pay off the discounted amount by September 7, 2007, and, as provided under the terms of the settlement agreement, Defendants foreclosed and purchased the properties on September 10, 2007. Within a week, Plaintiffs filed a lis pendens on the properties. Plaintiffs refused Defendants' request to release the lis pendens.

¶ 8 In February 2008, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement. Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently withdrew. In September 2008, Defendants moved for summary judgment, requesting that the District

244 P.3d 309

Court enforce the settlement agreement, remove the lis pendens, and dismiss the case with prejudice. The District Court issued an order allowing Plaintiffs until December 2008 to respond to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. In December 2008, Plaintiffs' current counsel appeared and filed a motion either for additional discovery pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 56(f) or to strike Defendants' motions to enforce the settlement agreement and for summary judgment. The District Court denied Plaintiffs' motion in July 2009 and ordered Plaintiffs to file a response to Defendants' motion for summary judgment. Following briefing, the District Court deemed the matter submitted and granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment in March 2010.

¶ 9 We rephrase the issues on appeal as follows:

¶ 10 Issue 1: Did the District Court err in denying Plaintiffs' M.R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for additional discovery?

¶ 11 Issue 2: Did the District Court err in enforcing the settlement agreement?

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 12 A district court may continue a motion for summary judgment on the basis that an opposing party needs additional discovery. M.R. Civ.

358 Mont. 115

P. 56(f); Rosenthal v. County of Madison, 2007 MT 277, ¶ 23, 339 Mont. 419, 170 P.3d 493. We review the denial of a M.R. Civ. P. 56(f) motion for an abuse of discretion. Rosenthal, ¶ 23.

¶ 13 We review a district court's summary judgment ruling de novo, applying M.R. Civ. P. 56 criteria. Summary judgment is appropriate if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, demonstrate that no genuine issue as to any material fact exists and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Phelps v. Frampton, 2007 MT 263, ¶ 15, 339 Mont. 330, 170 P.3d 474. Once the moving party establishes that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the burden...