Background
Gary Taylor conveyed Parcel B-1 to his son, George Anthony “Tony” Taylor, in 2013. Gary claimed Tony had orally agreed to return the property after subdivision approval, while Tony maintained that Gary later agreed to maintain the property and install a private road instead of paying rent. Gary continued living on the parcel, and Tony eventually demanded $2,000 in monthly rent.
In an earlier appeal, the Montana Supreme Court upheld title and possession in favor of Tony and Anne Marie Taylor but reversed the judgment on their contract and unjust-enrichment claims. On remand, the District Court found the alleged oral rental contract unenforceable, awarded the Taylors $60,000 for unjust enrichment, and allowed Gary a $6,100 offset for constructing the road, producing a $53,900 judgment plus interest.
The Court’s Holding
The Montana Supreme Court reversed. It held that disputed material facts precluded summary judgment on the unjust-enrichment claim and Gary’s claimed equitable setoff. A jury must determine whether Gary was a good-faith or bad-faith trespasser, including when any good-faith occupancy became wrongful.
The Court also held that the District Court improperly limited the potential setoff to the road’s construction cost without addressing Gary’s other claimed improvements or whether they enhanced the property’s value. Finally, Tony’s unilateral demand for $2,000 per month did not establish the parcel’s reasonable rental value, making damages another factual question for a jury.
Key Takeaways
- A property occupant’s entitlement to an equitable setoff may depend on disputed facts concerning good-faith trespass and when the occupancy became wrongful.
- A setoff for permanent improvements turns on how much the improvements enhanced the land’s value, not merely what they cost.
- An owner’s unsupported rent demand does not conclusively establish reasonable rental value for unjust-enrichment damages.
Why It Matters
The decision limits a court’s ability to resolve fact-intensive restitution and property-valuation disputes through summary judgment. When the parties dispute the occupant’s good faith, the value added by improvements, and the property’s reasonable rental value, those questions may require resolution by a jury.
The opinion is a noncitable memorandum opinion under the Montana Supreme Court’s Internal Operating Rules and does not serve as precedent.