713 P.2d 535 | Mont. | 1986
No. 8 5 - 3 7 1
I N THE SUPREKE COURT O F TEE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 LLOS PARKER, P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t , WALKER TEN EYCK KEED, 111, s.r:d RARBARA EREWSTER,
C e f e n d a n t s a n d P - e s p c n d e n t s . APPEAL E'RGM: D j . s t r . i c t C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , - a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f G a l l a t i n , The H o n o r a b l e Thomas O l s o n , Zudge p r e s i d i n g .
COUNSEL O F RECORD: F o r Appe I. I a r i t : N a s h & Nash; D o n a l d N a s h , Bozeman, filantana F o r R e s p o n d e n t : G o e t z , Kadden & Dunn; James H. G o e t z , E c z e m a n , K o n t a n a - - - . . - -. S u b m i t t e d o n B r i e f s : O c t . 2 5 , 1 9 8 5 D e c i d e d : J a n u a r y 2 7 , 1986 F i l e d : CI +& 4 . . J d 9 '-D ~j?,
- -- .- - . . - Clerk Mr. Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., d.el.ivered the Opinion of the Court.
Parker appeals an order of the Gallatin County District Court d-enying Parker's motion for summary judgment and granting Weed ' s and Erewster ' s motion for summary judgment.
Reversed and remand-ed with instructions. The sole issue on appeal is whether a right of first refusal violates the Nontana rule against perpetuities, S S 70-1-40', -408, MCA.
The facts of this case are not in dispute. On April 19, 1984, Parker signed a document entitled "First Right of Refusal. " Parker was designated "GRANTORu and Weed and Brewster were designated "GRANTEES." The agreement contained the following pertinent statements:
GRANTOR agrees not tc sell, transfer or assign a l l or any part of their interest in the above-described real estate (to other than his children or grandchildren) unless such interest shall have been first offered to GRANTEES for sale and purchase by them in accordance with the following provisions: (a) GRANTOR shall first offer to sell the above-described real estate tc GRANTEES at the same price and upcn the same terms and conditions as would govern upon a transfer to a third party . . . . (d) This First Right of Refusal is binding upon the heirs, personal representatives, zdministrators, successors, and assigns of each of the parties hereto. (including any children or grandchildren Transferees of the Gramtor.) 'Material in parenthesi s interlineated in handwriting in original document. l ICeed and Erewster recorded this agreement a.t the
Gallatin County Clerk and Recorder's Office on April 23, Gn August 3 1984, Parker filed a conplaint against Weed and Erewster seeking a declaratory judgment voiding the coritract between the parties which contained the right of first refusal alleging the contract violat-ed the rule z g a i n s t perpetuities.
On February 6, 1 9 8 5 , Parker filed a motion For summary judgment. On March I.]., 1385, Erewster and Weed also filed a motion for summary judgment. The issues were briefed by both parties, and on Karch 15, 1985, a hearing was hel-d.
On Yay 30, 1985, the Cistrict Court issued en order cjrantirg Weed's and Erewster's motion for summary judgment. It held that the right of first refusal was not a property interest so the rule against perpetuities did not apply to the preemption agreement.
We f a c e d z nearly identical situation in the case of Hardy v. Krutzfeldt (Mont. 1983), 672 P.2d 274, 4 0 St.Rep. 1823. In that case, Hardy sought a declaratory judgment that a preemptive clause was invalid as an unreasonable restraint cn alienation. The Cistrict Court granted Krutzfeldt's motion for suFmary judgment and Fardy appealed. We held that the facts or the case presented no justiciable controversy over which the judicizl power to determine real controversies extended. As we stated in Ezrdy: -
The only thing before this Court in this case is a difference of opj-ninn among lawyers o n the legal effect of the preemptive first refusal clause. We dc not have before us any litigants involved in an actual controversy who are deprived of a. property right in seeking redress. Our decision here will not affect ariy party to the contract directly, because cn this record there has not been any intent by a.ny party to sell property outside the preemptive clause, nor any third party seeking to be relieved from the preemptive clause.
Har2y, 672 P . 2 d at 276. In the instant case, Parker sought a decl-aratory judgmelit under the Uniforr Declaratory Judgments Act that the right of first refusal was invalid a violation of the rule against perpetuities. The District Court granted Weed's and B r e w s t e r ' s rnoti.cn for summary judgment a ~ d P a r k e r appea-led. A s i n Hardy, t h e r e c o r d i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e d i s c l o s e s no p e n d i n g s a l e c r o f f e r f o r sa!.e, o r p u r c h a s e o r o f f e r t-o p u r c h a s e t h e u n d e r l y i n g p r o p e r t y . No t h i r d p a r t y i s b e f o r e u s c h a l l e n g i n g t h e c l a u s e ' s a p p l i c a t i o n t o him. I n s t e a d , w e z r e b e i n g a s k e d t o r e n d e r a n a d v i s o r y o p i n i o n .
Our r e a s o n i n g i n Hardy a p p l i e s w i t h e q u a l f o r c e t o t h i s .
appeal..
l i t i g a n t b e f o r e u s i s i n immediate d a n g e r cf No s u s t a i n i n g d i r e c t r from t h e p r e e m p t i v e T h e r e f o r e w e d o n o t h a v e a j u s t i c i a b l e c l a u s e . c o n t r o v e r s y o v e r which t h e j u d i c i a l power t o d e t e r n i n e r e a l c c n t r o v e r s i e s may b e e x e r c i s e d . Broad l a n g u a g e i n t h e Uniform D e c l a r a t o r y Judgments A c t , s e c t i o n 27-8-2101, e t s e q . , MCA, may n o t b e u s e d a s a p l a t f o r m f o r c o u r t s i n t h i s s t a t e t o p l u n g e i n t o i n d e f j n i t e amorphous ponds of c o n t r a c t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n .
Hardy, 672 P.2d a t 276. T h e r e f o r e , w e r e v e r s e t h e o r d e r o f t h e C i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g r e s p o n d e n t s ' m o t i o n f o r summary judgment t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t may be c ~ n s t r u e d t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r i g h t s o f t h e p a r t i e s u n d e r t h e a g r e e m e n t c o n t a i n i n g t h e r i g h t o f f i r s t i r e f u s a l . The c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e O i s t r i c t C o u r t w i t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o d i s m i s s w i t h o u t p r hie Concur:
/ Justices