Harding v. Savoy, 2004 MT 280

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a judgment quieting title in favor of the Harding and Skogen plaintiffs and awarding treble damages for forcible detainer. The court upheld findings concerning possession, damages, a prescriptive easement, and the movement of the Sun River by accretion and avulsion. It also affirmed the denial of attorney fees.

Holdings

1. Mere wrongful occupation alone is insufficient to establish forcible detainer, but whether the circumstances or actions by which a person unlawfully holds and keeps possession constitute force, menaces, or threats of violence is a question for the fact finder. The evidence supported the District Court's finding that Savoy used sufficient force and actually possessed the disputed land, so treble damages were authorized.
2. When judgment is based on forcible detainer, the damages provision in § 70-27-205, MCA, rather than the general wrongful-occupation measure in § 27-1-318, MCA, governs. Damages that are the natural and proximate consequences of forcible detainer, including lost profits, emotional-distress damages, and incidental damages, may be recovered when supported by the evidence. The awards were supported by substantial evidence.
3. The Skogens established a prescriptive easement by clear and convincing evidence. The required elements are open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive, and adverse use for five years, and the trial court correctly found those elements satisfied.
4. Accretion gradually changes the property boundary with the water line, while avulsion does not change the property boundary. Because the river moved south by accretion after the 1906 survey and then north by avulsion in 1916, the District Court correctly determined the Harding-Savoy boundary. The 1948 avulsion in the Island area likewise left the Skogen-Murray boundary unchanged.
5. The District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees. Absent a contractual or statutory basis, Montana generally follows the American Rule, and the equitable exception for a party forced to defend against a wholly frivolous or malicious action generally does not authorize fees for plaintiffs who initiated the litigation. The Court declined to adopt the requested bad-faith-defense exception.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred in awarding treble damages for forcible detainer.
2. Whether the District Court applied the proper measure of damages and whether the damages awarded were supported by the evidence.
3. Whether the District Court erred in finding a prescriptive easement in favor of the Skogens across Murray's Lot 13.
4. Whether the District Court erred in determining the effects of accretion and avulsion on the disputed Sun River property boundaries.
5. Whether the District Court erred in denying the Hardings' and Skogens' claims for attorney fees.

Disposition

affirmed