b. Special Warranty Deed.
LDS conveyed the real estate to Wagner in a document
entitled, "Special Warranty Deed," which stated in part:
". . . Grantor, of Salt Lake County, State of Utah, hereby
conveys and warrants, against all acts of itself, and none
other, to all claiming by, through or under it to CANDACE A.
WAGNER, Grantee, .. .
. the following parcel . ." (Emphasis
added. )
LDS contends that the warranty clause limits the lia-
bility of LDS to its own acts. LDS contends that it did not
cause the defects and is therefore not responsible for the
defects. LDS concludes that the warranty clause should have
alerted Wagner, who "should bear the responsibility of having
improperly proceeded in light of the Special Warranty Deed,
and the language contained therein."
In reviewing this issue, we note that all sale docu-
ments were drafted by LDS or its agent. Wagner relied on
LDS's misrepresentations to her detriment. In the plain
language of the contractual clause, LDS warranted the house.
Having done so, LDS contractually obligated itself to the
veracity of the warrant. Section 28-3-401, MCA. Any uncer-
tainty over "what was warranted" in the deed should be inter-
preted most strongly against the party who drafted it.
Section 28-3-206, MCA. We find that the District Court
properly considered the language of the deed and held LDS
liable for the latent defects.
Issue 2. Amendments.
The District Court handed down its judgment on January
20, 1987. On January 29, 1987, LDS moved the court to amend
its findings of fact and conclusions of law, and to strike
references to the implied warranty of habitability. A hear-
ing was held on the motion on February 9, 1987. The District
Court amended its conclusions on April 7, 1987, stating that
LDS had "failed to exercise reasonable care or competence in
obtaining and/or communicating" information about the house's
condition to Wagner. LDS contends that the District Court
procedurally erred by not amending its conclusions in the
manner requested by LDS.
Amendments to judgments are discussed in Rule 52(b),
M.R.Civ.P., which states: "Upon motion of a party made not
later than 10 days after notice of entry of judgment the
court may amend its findings or make additional findings and
may amend the judgment accordingly. . ." (Emphasis added.)
LDS filed its motion and the court responded. The
amended conclusions were supported by the record. The deci-
sion to amend and manner of amendment lie squarely within the
discretion of the court. The court was under no obligation
to tailor its amendment to fit LDS's specifications. We find
that the court properly amended its judgment.