Bozeman Parking Commission v. First

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 1980
• Docket: 80-135
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 80-135 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980

BOZEMAN PARKING COMMISSION,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

FIRST TRUST CO. OF MONTANA, as Trustee for JEAN M. STIMSON, Trust, Defendant and Appellant.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial ~istrict, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bolinger, Higgins and Andes, Bozeman, Montana Far Respondent: Berg, Morgan, Coil and Stokes, Bozeman, Montana

Submitted on briefs: August 13, 1980 Decided: SEP 9 - 18 94 Filed: - 9 - 1980 SEP Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .

T h i s i s a n a p p e a l by F i r s t T r u s t Company of Montana,

( F i r s t T r u s t ) , a s t r u s t e e f o r J e a n M. S t i m s o n T r u s t from a

judgment o f condemnation g r a n t e d t o Bozeman P a r k i n g Commission,

(Bozeman) , by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t ,

G a l l a t i n County, and from a n o r d e r o f t h a t c o u r t d e n y i n g

necessary expenses of l i t i g a t i o n . W e hold t h a t F i r s t T r u s t

i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r i t s n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n and

t h a t t h e judgment o f condemnation s h o u l d s t a n d .

P l a i r ~ tff j i s a m u n i c i p a l e n t i t y c r e a t e d by t h e C i t y o f

Bozeman, Montana, and endowed by s t a t u t e w i t h t h e power of

e m i n e n t domain. S e c t i o n 7-14-462(.2), MCA. F i r s t Trust, a s

t r u s t e e , i s t h e owner o f c e r t a i n r e a l p r o p e r t y i n the o r i g i n a l

town s i t e which Bozeman s e e k s t o condemn f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h -

ment o f a p u b l i c o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g f a c i l i t y .

W e w i l l f i r s t t r e a t t h e i s s u e r a i s e d by F i r s t T r u s t t h a t

t h e D i s t r i c t Court should have g r a n t e d i t s motion t o d i s m i s s

the action entirely.

A f t e r t h e p r e l i m i n a r y condemnation o r d e r was e n t e r e d by

t h e D i s t r i c t Court, commissioners w e r e appointed t o determine

t h e v a l u e of t h e t a k i n g . They r e t u r n e d t h e i r r e p o r t o n

August 21, 1979, d e t e r m i n i n g t h a t F i r s t T r u s t s h o u l d b e p a i d

$155,000. The c l e r k o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t m a i l e d t o t h e

a t t o r n e y s o f r e c o r d f o r t h e p a r t i e s a copy o f h e r m i n u t e s f o r

August 21, 1979, which s t a t e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e i r f i n d i n g s :

"The v e r d i c t was g i v e n t o t h e C l e r k w i t h O r d e r s t o f i l e same, t h e Commissioners w e r e e x c u s e d by t h e C o u r t and s t a t e d t h a t t h e y would b e m a i l e d a check f o r t h e i r s e r v i c e s . "

No n o t i c e o f t h e f i l i n g o f t h e award, t o g e t h e r w i t h a

t r u e copy o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' r e p o r t , was s e r v e d by t h e

c l e r k upon t h e p a r t i e s i n t h e same manner a s a summons a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 70-30-303(1), MCA.

, S e c t i o n 70-30-304 (1) MCA, p r o v i d e s t h a t t h e t i m e f o r

e i t h e r p a r t y t o appeal i s within t h i r t y days a f t e r t h e

s e r v i c e upon t h e a p p e a l i n g p a r t y of t h e n o t i c e of t h e f i l i n g

of t h e award. S i n c e t h e s e r v i c e r e q u i r e d by s t a t u t e w a s n o t

made i n t h i s c a s e , t h e t r i g g e r i n g i n c i d e n t f o r s t a r t i n g t h e

t i m e r u n n i n g f o r a p p e a l from t h e commissioners' award

never occurred. No judgment based upon t h e commissioners'

r e p o r t had been e n t e r e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t when, on

October 2 3 , 1979, F i r s t T r u s t f i l e d i t s motion t o d i s m i s s

t h e a c t i o n i n i t s e n t i r e t y upon t h e c o n t e n t i o n t h a t F i r s t

T r u s t had n o t been p a i d t h e amount of t h e commissioners'

award, and a n e x e c u t i o n c o u l d n o t be made upon t h e munici-

pality.

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e motion t o

d i s m i s s and on December 7, 1979, e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s and

c o n c l u s i o n s , i n e s s e n c e d e c i d i n g t h a t no f i n a l judgment had

o c c u r r e d i n t h e c a s e b e c a u s e of t h e f a i l u r e of t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t c l e r k t o send a n o t i c e of t h e commissioners' award,

t o g e t h e r w i t h a t r u e copy of t h e r e p o r t , upon t h e p a r t i e s i n

t h e manner r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 70-30-303(1), MCA. As a

r e s u l t of t h e h e a r i n g , however, t h e n o t i c e of f i l i n g of t h e

r e p o r t of t h e commissioners was d u l y s e r v e d by t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t c l e r k on December 11, 1979. T h e r e a f t e r , no a p p e a l w a s

t a k e n w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s by e i t h e r p a r t y .

I t i s t h e c o n t e n t i o n of F i r s t T r u s t t h a t t h e t h i r t y -

day p e r i o d t o a p p e a l t h e commissioners' v e r d i c t began t o r u n

upon t h e e n t r y of t h e r e p o r t and t h e a c t u a l n o t i c e t h e r e o f

t o t h e p a r t i e s on August 2 1 , 1979. The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e s ,

however, are n o t open t o t h a t c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t i s the duty

of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e r k , a s w e have s a i d , t o n o t i f y a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s t h a t t h e r e p o r t h a s been f i l e d by a

n o t i c e accompanied by a t r u e copy of t h e r e p o r t , which must

be s e r v e d upon t h e i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s i n t h e same manner as

a summons. S e c t i o n 70-30-303(1), MCA. Immediately f o l l o w -

ing t h a t section, with r e s p e c t t o an appeal t o the D i s t r i c t

C o u r t from t h e commissioners1 a s s e s s m e n t , s e c t i o n 70-30-304

, (1) MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

". . . Such a p p e a l must be t a k e n w i t h i n t h e p e r i o d of 30 d a y s a f t e r t h e s e r v i c e upon a ~ ~ e l l a - -e n o t i c e - -e f i l i n a - of t t h n of t h of the award by t h e s e r v i c e of n o t i c e of s u c h a p p e a l upon t h e opposing p a r t y o r h i s a t t o r n e y .. .I1 (Emphasis added.)

The o n l y s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n f o r s e r v i c e of t h e com-

m i s s i o n e r s ' award i s t h a t found i n s e c t i o n 70-30-303(1),

MCA. S e c t i o n 70-30-304, MCA, c a n have no r e f e r e n c e t o any

n o n s t a t u t o r y method of s e r v i c e , nor even t o a c t u a l know-

l e d g e of t h e p a r t i e s , t h a t t h e c o m i s s i o n e r s l award h a s been

filed. The s t a t u t o r y p u r p o s e of r e q u i r i n g t h e c l e r k t o

s e r v e t h e n o t i c e of t h e commissioners1 award i s t o p r o v i d e a

d e f i n i t e l y a s c e r t a i n a b l e t i m e c o n t a i n e d i n t h e r e c o r d s of

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t which marks t h e s t a r t of t h e t i m e f o r

a p p e a l . When t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e i s p r o p e r l y f o l l o w e d ,

n o t h i n g i s l e f t t o chance a s t o t h e s t a r t of t h e r u n n i n g

of t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l .

I f a c t u a l n o t i c e o r n o n s t a t u t o r y s e r v i c e of such n o t i c e

i s t o be r e g a r d e d a s t r i g g e r i n g t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l , t o o

much i s l e f t t o chance and t o t h e s u b j e c t i v e i m p r e s s i o n s of

the parties or their attorneys. In t h i s case, therefore, t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l from t h e commissioners1 award d i d n o t

b e g i n t o r u n u n t i l t h e n o t i c e s e r v e d by t h e c l e r k was p r o p e r -

l y completed on December 11, 1979. On t h e d a t e t h a t F i r s t

T r u s t moved t o d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l , October 23, 1979, t h e commissioners' award w a s merely f i l e d and n o t h i n g s t a t u t o r -

i l y had o c c u r r e d t o t r i g g e r t h e r u n n i n g of t h e t i m e f o r

appeal. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t p r o p e r l y d e t e r m i n e d t h a t no

f i n a l judgment was t h e n pending. There was no l e g a l d u t y

upon Bozeman a t t h a t t i m e t o make payment t o F i r s t T r u s t .

I t i s o n l y when a condemnor h a s f a i l e d t o make payment of a

f i n a l judgment t h a t t h e condemnee i s e n t i t l e d t o a n o r d e r of

d i s m i s s a l of t h e a c t i o n under s e c t i o n 70-30-308(2), MCA.

The second i s s u e i s whether F i r s t T r u s t i s e n t i t l e d t o

t h e n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n which i t i n c u r r e d i n

t h i s condemnation c a s e .

There i s no d i s p u t e between t h e p a r t i e s t h a t Bozeman

made a f i n a l o f f e r t o F i r s t T r u s t of $110,000 and a c o n d i -

t i o n a l s h o r t - t e r m o f f e r of $140,000. The e v e n t u a l award a s

w e have s t a t e d was $155,000. On December 1 8 , 1979, F i r s t T r u s t f i l e d and s e r v e d i t s

motion f o r t a x a t i o n of c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e con-

demnation l i t i g a t i o n . When t h i s motion was f i l e d , t h e t h i r t y -

day t i m e f o r a p p e a l was s t i l l r u n n i n g s i n c e t h e n o t i c e by

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e r k of t h e r e p o r t of t h e commissioners

was s e r v e d on December 11, 1979. Moreover, no f i n a l judgment

o r o r d e r of condemnation had been e n t e r e d . The D i s t r i c t

C o u r t on J a n u a r y 2 3 , 1980, d e n i e d t h e motion f o r t a x a t i o n of

c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s . On J a n u a r y 2 4 , 1980, t h e ~ i s t r i c t

C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n a l o r d e r of condemnation i n t h e c a s e .

The f i n a l o r d e r n o t e d t h a t Bozeman had p a i d and d e p o s i t e d

w i t h t h e c o u r t c l e r k a l l sums due by r e a s o n of t h e commis-

s i o n e r s ' award and t h a t no a p p e a l from t h e a s s e s s m e n t of t h e

commissioners' had been t a k e n w i t h i n t h i r t y days. ~otice of

e n t r y of judgment w a s s e r v e d on t h e same day by t h e c l e r k .

On J a n u a r y 25, 1980, F i r s t T r u s t , w i t h o u t renewing i t s motion t o t a x c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s a f t e r t h e e n t r y of

f i n a l judgment, f i l e d a w r i t t e n o f f e r of proof o f t h e c o s t s

which were i n c u r r e d i n t h e l i t i g a t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t

h e l d a h e a r i n g on t h e w r i t t e n o f f e r , and on F e b r u a r y 7 ,

1980, a c c e p t e d i n f u l l a s r e a s o n a b l e and n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s

of l i t i g a t i o n t h e i t e m s s e t f o r t h t h e r e i n .

The condemnee i s e n t i t l e d t o h i s n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s of

l i t i g a t i o n " i n t h e e v e n t of l i t i g a t i o n and when t h e p r i v a t e

p r o p e r t y owner p r e v a i l s by r e c e i v i n g a n award i n e x c e s s of

t h e f i n a l o f f e r of t h e condemnor." S e c t i o n 70-30-305(2),

MCA. When F i r s t T r u s t f i l e d i t s motion on October 23, 1979,

t o t a x c o s t s and a t t o r n e y f e e s , i t was n o t e n t i t l e d t o

a judgment on t h e award of t h e commissioners b e c a u s e t h e

t i m e f o r a p p e a l had n o t began t o r u n on t h e day t h a t t h e

motion was f i l e d . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e r e f o r e , p r o p e r l y

d e n i e d t h e motion.

However, i t i s t h e c o n t e n t i o n of Rozeman t h a t

F i r s t T r u s t i s n o t e n t i t l e d i n any e v e n t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s

and c o s t s . Bozeman r e a d s s e c t i o n 70-30-305, MCA, t o mean

t h a t a n a p p e a l from t h e commissioners' award must be p e r -

f e c t e d by one of t h e p a r t i e s , and t h e r e a f t e r , w i t h i n t h i r t y

d a y s t h e condemnor must s u b m i t t o condemnee a w r i t t e n f i n a l

o f f e r of judgment. I f t h e s e e v e n t s do n o t o c c u r , Bozeman

c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e n t h e r e i s no r i g h t t o a t t o r n e y f e e s and

e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n under s e c t i o n 70-30-305, MCA.

I f t h i s c o n t e n t i o n were a c c e p t e d , any condemnor c o u l d

a v o i d t h e payment of n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n t o t h e

condemnee simply by n o t a p p e a l i n g from a commissioners'

award. T h i s c a n n o t be t h e r e s u l t i n l i g h t of t h e c o n s t i t u -

t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i n 1972 Mont. C o n s t . , A r t . 11, S29, which

p r o v i d e s w i t h r e s p e c t t o eminent domain, i n p a r t : ". . . I n t h e e v e n t of l i t i g a t i o n , j u s t compensation s h a l l i n c l u d e n e c e s s a r y expenses of l i t i g a t i o n t o b e awarded by t h e c o u r t when t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y owner p r e v a i l s . "

The l e g i s l a t u r e , i n a d o p t i n g s e c t i o n 70-30-305(2), MCA,

used n e a r l y t h e same language a s t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i -

sion, providing:

" I n t h e e v e n t of l i t i g a t i o n and when t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y owner p r e v a i l s by r e c e i v i n g a n award i n e x c e s s of t h e f i n a l o f f e r of t h e condemnor, t h e c o u r t s h a l l award n e c e s s a r y e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n t o t h e condemnee."

Under t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l c l a u s e , t h e r e a r e o n l y two

c o n d i t i o n s n e c e s s a r y t o e n t i t l e t h e condemnee t o l i t i g a t i o n

expenses. They a r e (1) l i t i g a t i o n , and ( 2 ) t h e p r i v a t e

p r o p e r t y owner p r e v a i l i n g . The l e g i s l a t u r e simply e x p l a i n e d

t h i s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n i n s e c t i o n 70-30-305(2), MCA,

when i t p r o v i d e d t h a t t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y owner p r e v a i l e d

when he r e c e i v e d a n award i n e x c e s s of t h e f i n a l o f f e r of

t h e condemnor. Whether we look a t t h e s t a t u t e o r t h e c o n s t i -

t u t i o n a l p r o v i s i o n , no s i m p l e r s t a t e m e n t of t h e condemnee's

r i g h t t o l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s can be made t h a n : i f he p r e -

v a i l s i n l i t i g a t i o n , he i s e n t i t l e d t o r e c o v e r h i s e x p e n s e s .

Those c o n d i t i o n s a r e f u l l y m e t h e r e , and i f on remand t h e condemnee

moves t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r such n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n

e x p e n s e s , i t w i l l be e n t i t l e d t o t h o s e e x p e n s e amounts

a l r e a d y a c c e p t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h e o f f e r of

proof. Thus, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e n t w i l l be s e r v e d and

the evident legislative intent also.

F i r s t Trust r a i s e s a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e claiming t h a t

s e c t i o n 70-30-305, MCA, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i f t h e con-

demnee's r i g h t t o l i t i g a t i o n expenses was l i m i t e d t o t h o s e

s i t u a t i o n s where a n a p p e a l had been t a k e n from t h e commis-

s i o n e r s ' award. I n view of o u r h o l d i n g f o r e g o i n g , t h e r e i s

no need t o r e a c h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e . I n any e v e n t , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e i s n o t r a i s e d p r o p e r l y under Rule

38, M.R.App.Civ.P.

One f i n a l i s s u e r a i s e d by F i r s t T r u s t r e q u i r e s d i s -

cussion.

On November 1, 1979, Bozeman d e p o s i t e d w i t h t h e c l e r k

of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i t s w a r r a n t i n t h e amount of $156,860,

r e p r e s e n t i n g t h e commissioners' award p l u s i n t e r e s t . The

w a r r a n t was made p a y a b l e t o F i r s t T r u s t . First Trust's

c o n t e n t i o n i s t h a t t h e w a r r a n t was n o t a d e p o s i t of money 17 0 under s e c t i o n 79.-30-308, MCA.

A t t h e t i m e Bozeman d e p o s i t e d t h e w a r r a n t w i t h t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t , t h e r e w a s no l e g a l o b l i g a t i o n upon i t a s a

condemnor t o do s o . N f i n a l judgment had been e n t e r e d , a s o

w e have p r e v i o u s l y n o t e d , and t h e o n l y p u r p o s e of a d e p o s i t

i n t h i s c a s e a t t h a t t i m e would be t o make a v a i l a b l e t o

F i r s t T r u s t monies which c o u l d be used t o s a t i s f y a f i n a l

judgment under s e c t i o n 70-30-308, MCA. F i r s t Trust i s

c o r r e c t t h a t s e c t i o n 70-30-308, MCA, r e q u i r e s t h a t money be

d e p o s i t e d i n s t e a d of a w a r r a n t , b u t h e r e t h a t p o i n t i s

unimportant, A t t h e t i m e of t h e d e p o s i t of the warrant with

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t c l e r k , F i r s t T r u s t was n o t e n t i t l e d t o

payment b e c a u s e a f i n a l judgment had n o t been e n t e r e d .

There i s no r e q u i r e m e n t f o r a d e p o s i t of money w i t h t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t under o u r s t a t u t e s d e a l i n g w i t h eminent

domain u n t i l i t i s n e c e s s a r y t h a t t h e condemnor make pay-

ment of a f i n a l judgment, w i t h one e x c e p t i o n . The e x c e p t i o n

i s when t h e condemnor s e e k s a n i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r p u t t i n g

t h e condemnor i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e condemned l a n d s . When

t h a t o c c u r s , t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 70-30-311, MCA, come

i n t o p l a y and t h e condemnor must d e p o s i t w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t f o r t h e condemnee t h e amount of compensation c l a i m e d by him i n h i s answer, o r t h e amount a s s e s s e d by t h e commis-

s i o n e r s o r by t h e j u r y , a s t h e c a s e may be.

Here Bozeman had n o t s o u g h t an i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r

p u t t i n g i t i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e l a n d s c l a i m e d . Therefore,

t h e d e p o s i t of a w a r r a n t i n s t e a d of money w i t h t h e c l e r k of

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s c a s e d i d n o t c a u s e any p r e j u d i c e

t o F i r s t Trust.

The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g condemnation

of t h i s c a s e i s a f f i r m e d . The o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

denying n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s t o t h e condemnee i s

a l s o a f f i r m e d , b u t t h e c a u s e i s remanded t o t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t s o t h a t F i r s t T r u s t may have an o p p o r t u n i t y t o move

a g a i n f o r t a x a t i o n of i t s n e c e s s a r y l i t i g a t i o n e x p e n s e s

before t h e D i s t r i c t Court. See S t a t e v . Helehan, c a u s e no.

80-60, d e c i d e d August 27, 1979, i n t h i s C o u r t . C o s t s of

a p p e a l s h a l l be b o r n e by e a c h p a r t y .

T h i s c a s e i s a good example of t h e l e g a l c o n f u s i o n

which r e s u l t s when a t t o r n e y s i n v o l v e d i n s p e c i a l p r o c e e d i n g s ,

s u c h a s eminent domain, do n o t c a r e f u l l y f o l l o w t h e s t a t u t e s

provided. A t e v e r y s t a g e of d i f f i c u l t y b e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t , t h e answer l a y i n t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h e s t a t u t e s .

Had t h e y been f o l l o w e d , t h e r e had been no need for

t h i s appeal.

Justice

W e concur: