Sandrock v. DeTienne
2010 MT 237
| Mont. | 2010Background
- Lease: August 2007, 15-year term; June 2008 amendment; Train Station as landlord, Money Train as tenant; rent paid to Train Station with 3% annual increases and late charges for late payments.
- Lease remedies: landlord had immediate right of re-entry and could terminate and re-let upon breach.
- Rent issues: Money Train withheld portions of rent August–October 2009 and sent payments to the Trust rather than Train Station as tenant’s payment channel.
- Notice and default: Train Station notified Money Train of deficiencies; December 2009 notices indicated potential mortgage default if rent remained unpaid; eviction proceedings commenced.
- Lockout and reentry: Sandrock changed locks on November 26, 2009; DeTienne reentered the next day; eviction dispute escalated to suit for rent, termination, and damages.
- TRO and injunction: Train Station sought TRO and preliminary injunction; district court granted TRO and later converted to a preliminary injunction prohibiting DeTienne from entering the property; Money Train appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court abused its discretion in issuing the preliminary injunction. | Train Station showed likely success on merits and threat of irreparable harm. | Money Train argued lack of showing on merits and irreparable harm; improper analysis of merits. | No manifest abuse; injunction affirmed. |
| Whether enjoining Money Train violated the rule against litigating title or possession by injunction. | Erickson rule not controlling due to contract-based remedies in lease. | Erickson precludes title litigation by injunction in general. | Not precluded; injunction permitted to enforce non-judicial, contractual remedy under the lease. |
| Whether the court erred by addressing merits of the lease within injunction proceedings. | Findings reserved for trial; injunction did not decide merits. | Court would reach merits in the injunction order. | Court did not decide merits; remnants reserved; no abuse. |
| Whether the court should have appointed a receiver to collect rents. | Appointment could protect mortgage and rents; receiver authority under § 27-20-102, MCA. | Receiver appointment unwarranted absent fraud or danger to property. | No abuse; receiver not warranted under the facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Erickson v. Hart, 231 Mont. 7 (Mont. 1988) (title in real property generally not litigated by injunction; but allows contractual remedies in this context)
- Eliason v. Evans, 178 Mont. 212 (Mont. 1952) (title or possession not to be decided by injunction)
- National Bank v. Bingham, 83 Mont. 21 (Mont. 1928) (early title/possession restriction in injunctions)
- Knudson v. McDunn, 271 Mont. 61 (Mont. 1995) (cautions against resolving rights at issue in injunctions)
- Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 2008 MT 453 (Mont. 2008) (preliminary injunction standards; preserve status quo; not decide merits)
- Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd. v. Bd. of Co. Comm'rs of Sweet Grass Co., 2000 MT 147 (Mont. 2000) (guidance on injunctions and status quo)
- Yockey v. Kearns Props., LLC, 2005 MT 27 (Mont. 2005) (discretion in granting preliminary injunctions; abuse standard)
- Benefis Healthcare v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2006 MT 254 (Mont. 2006) (limits on merits discussion; focus on preservation of status quo)
- Porter v. K & S Partnership, 192 Mont. 175 (Mont. 1981) (prima facie showing for irreparable harm in injunctions)