Rosen v. Rozan
Decision Date | 28 January 1960 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 245. |
Citation | 179 F. Supp. 829 |
Parties | Eugene D. ROSEN; Leonard Rosen, Trustee; J. S. Rozan, Trustee; Robert L. Wise and Bernice Wise, his wife; Norma R. Rosen; and Aloys P. Schmaltz and Rosemary Schmaltz, his wife, Plaintiffs, v. Alice F. ROZAN, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Montana |
Raymond Hildebrand, Glendive, Mont., E. J. McIlraith, Minot, N. D., for plaintiffs.
Bjella, Jestrab & Neff, Williston, N. D., Kelly & Carr, Miles City, Mont., for defendant.
Plaintiffs instituted an action in state court to quiet title to undivided fractions of minerals in lands in Fallon County, Montana. The complaint contains six causes of action. Each cause of action alleges, "That each and all of the plaintiffs above named are tenants in common to the lands and estates hereinafter described." In each cause of action it is alleged that the particular plaintiff "is the owner in fee simple of an undivided (specifying the percentage) interest in all oil, gas and other minerals in, under and to" the lands.
Leonard Rosen, trustee, one of the plaintiffs, and defendant are residents and citizens of California. The other plaintiffs are residents and citizens of other states.
Defendant removed to federal court, and plaintiffs seek to remand on the grounds, among others, (1) that there is no diversity of citizenship between all of the plaintiffs and the defendant, and (2) there is no separate and independent controversy or cause of action between Leonard Rosen, trustee, and defendant.
Defendant contends that the controversies between the other plaintiffs and the defendant are separate and independent from the controversy between Leonard Rosen, trustee, and the defendant, within the meaning of 28 U.S. C.A. § 1441(c), which reads:
1
In determining whether an action involves "a separate and independent claim or cause of action", the allegations of plaintiffs' complaint ordinarily are controlling.2 The complaint alleges that the plaintiffs are tenants in common in the ownership of certain minerals, specifying the percentage owned by each co-tenant. The total of the percentages specified in the six causes of action is 155/320ths. An affidavit of counsel for the plaintiff in support of the motion to remand recites that on June 15, 1954, M. M. Rozan conveyed 160/320ths interest in the minerals to the plaintiff Eugene D. Rosen; that thereafter by separate mineral deeds Eugene D. Rosen conveyed portions to the various plaintiffs, except the plaintiff Norma R. Rosen, and to one J. Robert Iovino, who thereafter conveyed that portion to Norma R. Rosen; that each of the plaintiffs has retained ownership of an undivided portion of the minerals so conveyed; and that the acquisition of the mineral interests by the plaintiffs was through the same transaction or series of transactions.3
Local law governs with respect to the plaintiffs' substantive rights.4 Under the Montana law, "An interest in common is one owned by several persons, not in joint ownership or partnership." R.C.M.1947, § 67-312. "Every interest created in favor of several persons in their own right, including husband and wife, is an interest in common, unless acquired by them in partnership, for partnership purposes, or unless declared in its creation to be a joint interest, * * *." R.C.M.1947, § 67-313.
In considering the rights of tenants in common in Rodda v. Best, 1923, 68 Mont. 205, 218, 217 P. 669, 673, the Supreme Court of Montana said: And in Nadeau v. Texas Company, 1937, 104 Mont. 558, 567, 69 P.2d 586, 591, 111 A.L.R. 874, the court said: "A cotenant, in prosecuting or defending actions concerning the common property, may treat the same as his own as against everyone except his cotenant." (Citing cases)5
Section 93-2818, R.C.M.1947, provides that two or more persons claiming an estate or interest in lands under a common source of title, whether holding as tenants in common, joint tenants, or in severalty, may unite in an action against any person claiming an adverse interest or estate therein.
The leading case construing 28 U.S. C.A. § 1441(c) is American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 1950, 341 U.S. 6, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702. Finn, a citizen of Texas, brought an action to recover for a loss by fire, naming as defendants two foreign insurance companies and one Reiss, a resident agent of both companies in Texas. Plaintiff alleged that one of the insurance companies was liable under a policy of insurance it had issued, or, in the alternative, that the other insurance company was liable under its policy. As a third alternative she sued all three defendants, alleging that all of them were liable "for `anything that results in the defeat of her recovery on either one of said policies.'" In holding that there was a single wrong and that the cause should have been remanded, the Court said in part:
Delany v. Stautberg, 1953, D.C.S.D. Tex., 112 F.Supp. 654, 656, was an action to recover title and possession of lands in Texas. Plaintiffs alleged that they were the owners in fee and entitled to possession and that the defendants wrongfully entered upon the property and dispossessed plaintiffs. In following American Fire & Casualty Company v. Finn, supra, the court said in part: "There is no substantial difference between the nature of the single wrong for which Finn sought relief and the single wrong for which plaintiffs here seek relief."7
Under § 1441(c) the right of removal in an action to quiet title, as in other actions, depends upon the existence of a "separate and independent claim or cause of action." In a quiet title action a primary test is whether the parties, either plaintiff or defendant, claim under a common right or through a common source.8 Moreover, a "separate and independent claim or cause of action" does not exist merely because it can be presented without the presence or joinder of any other party.9 It is true that a suit would lie on behalf of any one or more of the plaintiffs here. In that sense the claims are "separate". In order to justify removal, however, they must also be "independent" of the claims of the other plaintiffs.10
Defendant relies primarily upon Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Stanolind Oil & Gas Co., 8 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 412, 415. There the plaintiff instituted two actions to quiet title, which were consolidated for trial. Two foreign corporations appeared, one in each case, seeking construction of oil and gas leases. No other defendants appeared. The replies of the plaintiff disclosed that the two defendants "had an interest in the land which should not be declared null and void, but it was asked that the contracts out of which the interests arose be construed." In upholding the trial court's denial of a motion to remand, the court said in part: 251 F.2d at page 415. This case, in my opinion, is clearly distinguishable.
The same is true of Bonner v. Smith, D.C.E.D.Okl.1953, 114 F.Supp. 895, 898, where resident defendants were joined "for the sole purpose of barring any claim of lien for unpaid ad valorem and inheritance taxes," while the nonresident defendants apparently claimed title through a common origin. The court there said in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US Industries, Inc. v. Gregg
...respective plaintiffs may be "separate," they are not "independent." Fugard v. Thierry, 265 F.Supp. 743 (N.D.Ill.1967); Rosen v. Rozan, 179 F.Supp. 829 (D.C.Mont.1960); Wright, Federal Courts, § 39, n. 18 (1972 Supp.); Note, 52 Columbia L.Rev. 101, 106-107 While USI's Claim 6(b) is for brea......
-
IN RE GEN. ADJUDICATION OF ALL RIGHTS TO USE WATER
...the 1948 change in § 1441(c). This casts great doubt on their continued validity, as at least one case has implied, Rosen v. Rozan, 179 F.Supp. 829, 833, n. 11 (D.Mont.1959), and 14 Wright, Miller & Cooper at pp. 638-39, n.46, also suggest that the Evangelical Lutheran Church case erroneous......
-
Strange v. Arkansas-Oklahoma Gas Corp.
...v. Gregg, 348 F.Supp. 1004 (D.C.Del.1972); LaVan Pet. Co. v. Underwriter's at Lloyd's, 334 F.Supp. 1069 (D.C.N.Y.1971); Rosen v. Rozan, 179 F.Supp. 829 (D.C.Mont.1959); and Schwartz v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, 424 F.Supp. 672 The words of the author of a note in the Colorado L......
-
Lavan Petroleum Company v. Underwriters at Lloyds
...coverage." Ramapo Rockland Corp. v. Merchants & Business Men's Mutual Insurance Co., 156 F.Supp. 311 (S.D.N.Y. 1957); Rosen v. Rozan, 179 F.Supp. 829 (D.Mont.1960). Additionally, Finn instructs that when determining this issue the court must "look to the plaintiff's pleading, which controls......