Mathes v. Adams, 91-556
| Citation | 838 P.2d 390,254 Mont. 347 |
| Decision Date | 18 August 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. 91-556,91-556 |
| Parties | Bernice MATHES, George LaVoie, Pete Skelsky, Richard Schwarz, Cora Linn, Norris Amundson, Dorienne Amundson, Tom Talarico, Sheryl Manginelli, and Harold Manginelli, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Bill ADAMS and Harold Magruder, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Montana |
Klaus D. Sitte, Montana Legal Services Ass'n, Missoula, for plaintiffs and appellants.
Norris Amundson, pro se.
Christopher B. Swartley, Datsopoulos, MacDonald & Lind, Missoula, for defendants and respondents.
This is an appeal from the Fourth Judicial District Court, in and for the County of Missoula, the Honorable Jack L. Green presiding. Appellants were all tenants of a Missoula trailer court at one time or another. They appeal the decision of the District Court which held that the landlords did not breach the warranty of habitability. We reverse.
This action began in 1983 when Bill Adams and Harold Magruder (landlords) purchased a Missoula trailer court known as the "River Road Trailer Court." Mervin Brandvold (Brandvold) became the on-site manager and leased mobile home spaces to numerous individuals, some of whom are the appellants (tenants) in this action. Shortly after purchasing the trailer court the landlords made promises to reseed lawns and pave streets, neither of which was done. They also made various rules for the trailer court and its residents which went unenforced over the course of several years; the manager actually participated in breaking the rules.
The tenants experienced various maintenance problems the most serious to include garbage accumulation due to inadequate collection services, septic system overflows and backups, and a contaminated water system. The tenants complained regularly, resulting in little or no action from the landlords or Brandvold.
In 1985, the landlords decided to build a townhouse development on the trailer court site and submitted proposals to that end with the appropriate authorities. To accomplish the project, eviction of the trailer court tenants would be necessary. As consideration of the townhouse development progressed, the tenants continued to be plagued with severe problems with the water and sewer systems as well as garbage collection and general cleanliness of the common areas of the trailer court.
At one point a "boil order" was levied due to a contaminated water sample test obtained by the Missoula City-County Health Department (Health Department). It was not uncommon that raw sewage spilled out onto the ground and sewer risers on vacant trailer spaces had loose fitting caps or were left uncapped completely. Little or no effort was made to clean up the spills leaving a detestable odor throughout the trailer court, particularly in warm weather.
Eventually, landlords withdrew the proposed townhouse development and the property continued to be utilized as a trailer court. Complaining tenants were often met with threats of eviction though some persisted anyway. Several tenants testified that they did not complain in writing because they believed the eviction threats of Brandvold and they did not possess the financial resources to move their trailers on short notice.
Out of desperation the tenants eventually began to complain to the Health Department because of the inaction of the landlords and Brandvold. Out of concern for their health and safety, the tenants formed a tenants' union in August of 1985 and elected a spokesperson. On August 13, 1985 the spokesperson/tenant received an eviction notice. Also in August, the landlords attempted to have the tenants sign a written rental agreement; all refused primarily due to a clause in the agreement that stated the premises were in a safe and tenantable condition.
After the Health Department became involved at various points, the landlords were instructed to hook into the Missoula County sewer system due to the severity of the septic system problems and water contamination. To accomplish this endeavor, landlords evicted the tenants all of whom were out of the trailer court by July 1986.
This matter came to trial in 1991 on the 9th, 10th and 24th of April and the District Court ruled in favor of the landlords, stating that they did not breach the warranty of habitability in maintaining the trailer court. Tenants appeal and we reverse.
We address only the following dispositive issue on appeal: whether the District Court erred in deciding that the landlords did not breach the warranty of habitability.
We utilize the "clearly erroneous" standard for reviewing findings of fact. Steer, Inc. v. Department of Revenue (1990), 245 Mont. 470, 474, 803 P.2d 601, 603. To determine whether a finding is clearly erroneous we have adopted the following three-part test:
First, the Court will review the record to see if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Second, if the findings are supported by substantial evidence we will determine if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of evidence. [Citing cases.] Third, if substantial evidence exists and the effect of the evidence has not been misapprehended, the Court may still find that "[A] finding is 'clearly erroneous' when, although there is evidence to support it, a review of the record leaves the court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." [Citing cases.]
Interstate Prod. Credit Ass'n v. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287.
Montana enacted "The Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act" (the Act) in 1977. Sections 70-24-101, MCA et seq. The purpose of the Act is to: "(a) simplify, clarify, modernize, and revise the law governing the rental of dwelling units and the rights and obligations of landlords and tenants; and (b) encourage landlords and tenants to maintain and improve the quality of housing." Section 70-24-102, MCA. The term "dwelling unit" is defined by Sec. 70-24-103(3), MCA, to include "a person who rents space in a mobile home park," making the Act applicable in the case at bar. The Act utilizes "good faith" or "honesty in fact" as the standard in dealings and transactions between the parties. Section 70-24-103(4), MCA.
Also instructive in the case at bar are various Administrative Rules of Montana including: 16.10.706-Water Supply, 16.10.707-Sewage System, 16.10.710-Solid Waste--Storage and Disposal, 16.10.714-Operator Requirements.
It is with guidance from these sources that we address the issue of habitability; intimately intertwined with the habitability issue is the aspect of "notice" to the landlords of the problems the tenants experienced. Therefore, for clarity, we first address informationally the topic of "notice" in the case at bar before proceeding to the dispositive issue of habitability.
The landlords argue that they were never notified nor were they aware of the conditions so that they could repair or replace the problem. This argument is not supported by the record. Brandvold, as manager of the trailer court, lived in the trailer court and, if he did not observe the debris and odors in and about the trailer court, he most certainly should have. Since Brandvold is the agent of the landlords, they must be charged with having notice of the defects and conditions on the premises.
The landlords continue with this illogical argument in reliance on Sec. 70-24-406, MCA, which provides that the tenant is to notify the landlord in writing of any problems. We believe that the legislature adopted the "in writing" portion of the statute to deter tenants from claiming that they gave notice to the landlord when they had not. The "in writing" requirement is to assure that the landlord was given notice and the opportunity to correct the problem. The case at bar is not one of these cases. As stated previously, Brandvold lived at the facility and witnessed the defects and problems first hand; he obviously had actual notice of all the aforementioned problems. The Health Department was also involved on various occasions relating to the unsanitary sewage and water conditions of the trailer court. The testimony of one of the owners, Harold Magruder (Magruder) is riddled with the words "I don't recall" when asked for any specificity or detail on almost any issue. He was particularly elusive about the notice issue and even went so far as to state repeatedly that he was not aware of the complaints because they were not in writing due to Brandvold's failure to relate the complaints to him.
Later, Magruder reluctantly conceded that he was aware of some of the problems and that eight of the tenants were complaining. Further, Magruder testified that he did get written notice from the Health Department about the condition of the trailer court:
Q. Clean and safe. Was it [the trailer court] clean according to the pictures of the refuse piled around all of the dumpsters?
A. Well, if that--those pictures coincided with the date of the rental agreement, no.
Q. Wasn't the water unsafe in August of 1985? Wasn't there a boil order in effect?
A. If that's what it [the letters from the Missoula County Health Department] says, yes.
Q. And didn't Mr. Kikkert [the County's environmental health specialist], several times, say that there were serious sanitary problems going on at the trailer court?
A. Just that one mention in that one here.
Q. Well, I recall three letters by Mr. Kikkert indicating that there were sanitation problems there.
A. Caps.
Q. That's not exactly what he said. Didn't he talk about serious health hazards? Do you want to look at the exhibits again?
Magruder's testimony is fraught with inconsistencies; after claiming that he had no knowledge of the problems he then testified that the sewer repair people were out at the trailer court trying to fix the problems on a daily basis. Magruder also attempts to create yet another escape route stating that he told Brandvold...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tucker v. Hayford
...the water quality, did not render the property uninhabitable. Mitchell v. Straith, 40 Wash. App. 405, 412, 698 P.2d 609 (1985). And in Mathes v. Adams, as the Tuckers point out, the Montana court ultimately held that unsafe drinking water renders a rental property uninhabitable. Mathes v. A......