Miller v. Meredith, 11185

• Decision Date: 02 February 1967
• Docket Number: No. 11185,11185
• Citation: 149 Mont. 125,423 P.2d 595
• Parties: Raymond M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Beulah F. MEREDITH, Nanet Meredith Hill, Ross Whitfield, Florence Whitfield, wife of Ross Whitfield, Defendants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 595

423 P.2d 595

149 Mont. 125

Raymond M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. Beulah F. MEREDITH, Nanet Meredith Hill, Ross Whitfield Florence Whitfield, wife of Ross Whitfield, Defendants.

No. 11185.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Feb. 2, 1967.

B. Miles Larson, Jr., Stanford, Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, Cresap S. McCracken, Great Falls, James C. Wilkins, Jr., Lewistown, for defendants and respondents.

Charles Davidson, (argued), Great Falls, for plaintiff and appellant.

JOHN C. HARRISON, Justice.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment entered in the district court, in and for the County of Judith Basin, Montana, the Honorable LeRoy McKinnon, judge presiding.

The action was brought in the Spring of 1965, founded upon allegations that the appellant had an option to certain lands owned by Beulah F. Meredith, subsequently conveyed to her daughter, Nanet Meredith Hill, who later conveyed to Ross and Florence Whitfield. By extensive discovery proceedings, questions of fact were eliminated from the case and upon appropriate motion the court granted summary judgment of dismissal in favor of respondents on May 13, 1966.

Beulah F. Meredith acquired the land in question in the early 1930's. In 1948, the appellant Miller leased the land from her for three years and this 1948 lease was extended from time to time until November 1960. At that time appellant drew a new lease for three years commencing January 1, 1961, and expiring December 31, 1963. Under the lease he drew, the appellant provided:

'It is further agreed that Raymond Miller shall have the right of option should the lands be for sale.'

Appellant summer-fallowed and planted winter wheat in the Fall of 1963. No new lease was submitted by appellant at the end of the lease on December 31, 1963. In April the respondents Whitfield purchased the property from Beulah F. Meredith and her daughter Nanet Meredith Hill for the sum of $10,000. On April 20, they notified appellant of their purchase, and he immediately flew to Colorado Springs on April 22, where he was told that the sale had been made. Upon return to Montana the appellant wrote respondent Hill on April 28, stating that he wanted to purchase the land, suggested an installment purchase of same and that he was 'very interested in exercising my option to purchase the land.'

In May the land was conveyed to the respondents Whitfield and they received the landlords' share of the 1964 crop. Suit was not filed until late in March 1965, and Mrs. Meredith was not served with summons until a year and one-half passed after the end of the lease. Service on Mrs. Hill took an additional month. In the meantime Mrs. Meredith had become an incompetent and her daughter Mrs. Hill had been made guardian ad litem.

While appellant sets forth two specifications of error which are (1) that the court erred in finding that the option granted in 1961 lease had no force or effect after January 1, 1964 and (2) that the court erred in finding that defendants Whitfield were purchasers in good faith and without notice, we feel the only issue before this court is whether the tenant, upon the expiration of a written lease and option, has an effective option by operation of law some three and one-half months after the expiration date.

The question of whether a tenant holding over can exercise an option has not been before this court.

This court held in Hart v. Barron, 122 Mont. 350, 204 P.2d 797, when called upon to interpret a contract: 'If any uncertainty exists in such contract it is to be interpreted most strongly against the plaintiff promisor who caused such uncertainty to exist. Section 7545, R.C.M.1935 (now section 13-720, R.C.M.1947).' See also Voyta v. Clonts, 134 Mont. 156, 328 P.2d 655.

This court has defined the word 'option' as follows: 'An option is a right acquired by contract to accept or reject a present offer within a limited or reasonable time.' Winslow v. Dundom, 46 Mont. 71, 125 P. 136, quoting from Snider v. Yarbrough, 43 Mont. 203, 115 P. 411. And, "It is simply a contract, by which the owner of property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property, at a fixed price, within a certain time." (Quoting from Ide v. Leiser, 10 Mont. 5, 24 P. 695, 24 Am.St.Rep. 17.)

It is apparent on the face of the lease that...