Drumm v. Shelly

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court affirmed a district court judgment arising from the purchase of a lot allegedly affected by water-access and sanitation concerns. The court upheld dismissal of the rescission claim and dismissal of one defendant following a settlement stipulation, and concluded that the jury was properly instructed on constructive fraud and that the court properly answered the jury's clarification question. The jury's $5,000 Consumer Protection Act award against the remaining defendant was affirmed.

Holdings

1. The District Court did not err in dismissing the rescission claim and dismissing Tom Hill as a defendant because the Drumms' stipulation settled their dispute with Hill and left no remaining defendant, as alleged in the complaint, who could be liable on the rescission claim concerning the real estate contract.
2. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to add the Drumms' proposed language stating that a real estate agent's failure to disclose a material fact or legally required documents is fraudulent.
3. The District Court did not abuse its discretion by instructing the jury to focus on the first statutory paragraph of constructive fraud and explaining that the second paragraph did not apply to the case.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the District Court erred in dismissing the rescission claim and dismissing Tom Hill from the lawsuit based on the parties' stipulation.
2. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by refusing to include the plaintiffs' proposed specific language concerning nondisclosure in the constructive-fraud jury instruction.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in responding to the jury's question by explaining that only the first statutory definition of constructive fraud applied to the case.

Disposition

affirmed