LeMond v. Yellowstone Development, LLC
336 P.3d 345
Mont.2014Background
- LeMond sought title to Lot 11 from Yellowstone Development; Blixseth represented Yellowstone and later formed Overlook Partners to acquire Overlook Lots.
- Lis pendens was filed on Overlook Lots to notify LeMond’s constructive trust claim; Overlook Partners bought the Overlook Lots subject to that lis pendens.
- Bankruptcy proceedings: Yellowstone Development and Yellowstone Mountain Club assets were reorganized under YCL Trust; stipulations settled LeMond’s claim and recognized a contract and constructive trust underlying Overlook Lots.
- Bankruptcy stipulations allowed LeMond to pursue title in district court; later stipulations affirmed a constructive trust and LeMond’s priority due to lis pendens.
- District Court granted partial summary judgment, denied certain motions, and ultimately quieted title in LeMond to all Overlook Lots, prompting appeals by Blixseth, Overlook Partners, and Lampe, with LeMond cross-appeal.
- On remand, the court must provide adequate findings on the measure of unjust enrichment before final restitution.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the court err in dismissing Blixseth | Blixseth had no personal ownership interest; dismissal proper. | Blixseth’s personal interest or due process concerns justified input. | upheld; no personal interest; proper dismissal |
| Do Overlook Partners and Lampe take title subject to LeMond’s claim | Lis pendens binding; purchasers take subject to LeMond’s claim. | Purchasers acquired free of prior claims; lis pendens improper to affect title. | yes; lis pendens binds; title conveyed subject to LeMond's claim |
| Can Overlook Partners or Lampe challenge LeMond-YCL Trust stipulations | Trustee acted within authority; law of the case supports validity of contract. | Judicial estoppel and misconduct arguments merit challenge. | no; stipulations upheld; cannot relitigate contract issues |
| Was the district court’s final judgment proper equity | Constructive trust appropriate to rectify unjust enrichment. | Contract and equity arguments insufficient; need clearer justification and scope. | constructive trust affirmed but remanded for adequate unjust enrichment findings |
Key Cases Cited
- Fox v. Clarys, 227 Mont. 194 (Mont. 1987) (lis pendens binding on subsequent purchasers; preserves status quo)
- Conn. v. Doehr, 501 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1991) (lis pendens not a substantive right; notices pending suit)
- West v. Club at Spanish Peaks L.L.C., 2008 MT 183 (Mont. 2008) (limits on lis pendens when relief is solely money damages)
- Paulson v. Lee, 229 Mont. 164 (Mont. 1987) (actual claim to title or possession may suffice for lis pendens)
- Hamman v. S.W. Gas Pipeline, Inc., 821 F.2d 299 (5th Cir. 1987) (notice of lis pendens binds purchaser)