PATRICK HACKLEY, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. WILLIAM HACKLEY, Defendant and Appellee., 2019 MT 95N

Summary

HOLDINGS: [1]-Property owner was entitled to summary judgment, Mont. R. Civ. P. 56, on the sublessee's claim for breach of contract arising from the property owner's decision not to let the sublessee use his land because there were no genuine issues as to material facts and judgment as a matter of law was proper on grounds there was no privity of contract with the sublessee; [2]-Moreover, the property owner was entitled to summary judgment on the tort claims of negligence, negligent misrepresentation, infliction of mental distress, and constructive fraud because the claims sounded in contract where they were based solely upon an alleged breach of the specific terms of an agreement, and the undisputed facts did not show that the property owner owed a separate duty of care or that his conduct amounted to fraud or fraudulent inducement.