Bukvich v. Butte-Silver Bow

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: September 9, 1982
• Docket: 81-517
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-517

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA F F

DAN BUKVICH, KATIE J'IURFtAY and L O JACOBSEN, E

P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,

BUTTE-SILVER BOW, a p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n o f t h e S t a t e of Montana, and DONALD PEOPLES, e t a l . ,

D e f e n d a n t s and Respondents.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County of S i l v e r Bow Honorable R o b e r t Boyd, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Recprd:

For A p p e l l a n t s :

J a r d i n e , McCarthy & Grauman, W h i t e h a l l , Montana John J a r d i n e a r g u e d , W h i t e h a l l , Montana

For Respondents:

R o b e r t McCarthy a r g u e d , County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana Ross P. R i c h a r d s o n a r g u e d , Deputy County A t t o r n e y , B u t t e , Montana

Submitted: J u l y 1 5 , 1982

Decided: September 9 , 1982

Filed: ijkp 3 I982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e f o l l o w i n g O p i n i o n of the Court. T h i s c a s e c e n t e r s around a pay d i s p u t e between t h e a p p e l l a n t s , Dan B u k v i c 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 , K a t i e Murray, the auditor, and Leo Jacobsen, the coroner; and respondents,

Butte-Silver BOW, a political subdivision of the State of M o n t a n a , Don P e o p l e s , i t s c h i e f e x e c u t i v e , and i t s a c t i v e c o u n c i l o f commissioners.

Appellants are duly elected and qualified officials of B u t t e - S i l v e r Bow. They c o n t e n d t h a t t h e i r s a l a r i e s were f i x e d by

t h e p a s s a g e of r e s o l u t i o n no. 3 2 5 and n o t o r d i n a n c e no. 134, a s

t h e respondents contend. Appellants petitioned t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r a w r i t of man- d a t e t o r e q u i r e t h e r e s p o n d e n t s t o pay t h e s a l a r i e s a s s e t o u t i n

the resolution. R e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d a m o t i o n to d i s m i s s and a m o t i o n t o q u a s h a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of m a n d a t e . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t

g r a n t e d b o t h m o t i o n s and t h i s a p p e a l e n s u e d . The sole i s s u e h e r e is w h e t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d in granting respondents' motion to dismiss and motion to quash

a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of m a n d a t e . T h i s C o u r t is u n a b l e t o make a n y d e t e r m i n a t i o n on t h i s i s s u e a t this t i m e because t h e record on appeal is i n c o m p l e t e . The resolution is a key in this situation and in looking at the r e c o r d w e a r e u n a b l e t o t e l l what was c o n t a i n e d i n it or how it was p a s s e d . W i t h o u t t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n , i t is i m p o s s i b l e f o r u s to

render a decision. We, therefore, order that the lower court proceedings be v a c a t e d and t h a t a h e a r i n g be h e l d to d e t e r m i n e e x a c t l y w h a t t h i s so-called resolution is and t h e manner i n which it was p a s s e d . T h i s c a s e i s remanded f o r f u r t h e r p r o c e e d i n g s t o b e

conducted i n accord w i t h t h i s opinion.

W e concur:

PA&$. y, & Chief J u s t i c e