Knight v. Billings

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: February 25, 1982
• Docket: 81-036
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-36 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1981

EARLE AND HAZEL KNIGHT, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants,

THE CITY OF BILLINGS, a municipal corporation, Defendant and Respondent.

Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone Honorable Robert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Pedersen, Herndon, Harper, Munro & Hartman, Billings, Montana Rodney Hartman argued, Billings, Montana For Respondent: Peterson Law Offices, Billings, Montana K. D. Peterson argued, Billings, Montana

Submitted: November 30, 1981 Decided: February 25, 1982 Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This is an appeal from a judgment by the District Court, Thirteenth Judicial District, Yellowstone County, finding no inverse condemnation by the City of Billings of residential properties owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are individual homeowners who own residences on the west side of 24th Street West between Lewis and Broadwater Avenues in Billings. They purchased their properties in the years between 1954 and 1976. Twenty-fourth Street West is a major arterial street in Billings. It provides substantial "desire-line" access from a large portion of the Billings environs to a substantial mall, high school, church, and commercial area, located south of these residences. A part of the commercial area extends along 24th Street West itself. The residences are all located within the Lillis Sub- division which was created in 1954. Lillis Subdivision was not in the City of Billings at the time of its creation. The land in Lillis Subdivision is subject to private deed restrictions which allow only single family dwellings until the year 2000. The portion of 24th Street West involved in

this case was annexed to the City in 1959. Before that, in 1953, Yellowstone County had restricted the speed limit on

24th Street West to 35 miles per hour, and had installed stop signs for traffic entering the street from the east and west at intersections. Until 1972, 24th Street West was a two lane roadway with on-street parking. The first traffic lights

on the street were installed at the intersection of Grand Avenue in 1970. The second followed in 1971 and there are at least four traffic lights now in existence at intersections along 24th Street West. I n 1972, 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t was widened t o p r o v i d e f o u r

l a n e s of t r a f f i c and t h e r e s i d e n c e s h e r e i n v o l v e d l o s t t h e i r

on-street parking r i g h t s o r privileges.

Rimrock M a l l , now Montana's l a r g e s t shopping c e n t e r ,

w a s opened i n 1975 on 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t , s o u t h of p l a i n t i f f s '

properties. There a r e a l s o a l o n g t h e s t r e e t two l a r g e

d i s c o u n t s t o r e s , a s u p e r m a r k e t , a hardware s t o r e , a mini-

mall, two c o n v e n i e m s t o r e s , and s e v e r a l o f f i c e b u i l d i n g s .

Another s u p e r m a r k e t i s p r e s e n t l y under c o n s t r u c t i o n on 2 4 t h

S t r e e t West n e a r p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s . The a r t e r i a l a l s o

p r o v i d e s a c c e s s t o a n i n t e r s t a t e highway from t h e c i t y

proper.

T r a f f i c development, a s shown by t r a f f i c c o u n t s on 2 4 t h

Street W e s t indicates: i n A p r i l 1966, a n a v e r a g e d a i l y

v e h i c u l a r t r a f f i c f l o w of 6,330 v e h i c l e s ; i n August 1970,

9,684 v e h i c l e s ; on J u l y 1 5 , 1975, a t r a f f i c c o u n t of 1 7 , 0 4 0 ;

and i n 1979, an a v e r a g e d a i l y t r a f f i c c o u n t o f 18,018. Pro-

j e c t i o n s f o r t h e y e a r 2000 r a n g e from 23,350 t o 36,850

average d a i l y vehicles.

I n 1976, t h e C i t y o f B i l l i n g s h e l d p u b l i c m e e t i n g s con-

c e r n i n g a p o s s i b l e condemnation p r o c e d u r e on 24th S t r e e t

West, and t h e r e a f t e r , widened t h e a r t e r i a l by condemning

r e a l p r o p e r t y e x c l u s i v e l y on t h e e a s t s i d e . No real p r o p e r t y

was t a k e n from t h e w e s t s i d e o f 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t , where t h e

p l a i n t i f f s have t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t no changes on 2 4 t h

S t r e e t W e s t w e r e u n d e r t a k e n by t h e C i t y u n t i l c o n d i t i o n s

e x i s t e d which i n d i c a t e d t h a t a n a d j u s t m e n t w a s n e c e s s a r y t o

handle t h e t r a f f i c a l r e a d y t h e r e .

Plaintiffs ' proper&s a subject t o a zoning o r d i n a n c e which was a d o p t e d i n 1972. The zoning o r d i n a n c e f o l l o w e d e x t e n s i v e p u b l i c h e a r i n g s and an e l e c t i o n . The p r o p e r t i e s

o n which p l a i n t i f f s have t h e i r r e s i d e n c e s w e r e zoned R-7200,

which zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s t i l l a p p l i e s t o p l a i n t i f f s '

p r o p e r t i e s . An R-7200 c l a s s i f i c a t i o n p e r m i t s s i n g l e f a m i l y

d w e l l i n g s , and a l s o d u p l e x e s i f t h e l o t s i n v o l v e d encompass

more t h a n 9,600 s q u a r e f e e t . None of t h e l o t s owned by

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

properties. A l l of t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s here involved

a r e s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s and have been d u r i n g a l l o f t h e

t i m e t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s have o c c u p i e d t h e same, t h r o u g h t h e

events t h a t a r e being recounted here.

I n 1978, a f t e r t h e condemnation of t h e p r o p e r t y from

t h e e a s t s i d e of 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t , t h e s t r e e t w a s widened by

t h e a d d i t i o n of a f i f t h l a n e s i t u a t e d i n t h e middle of t h e

o t h e r f o u r l a n e s , t o p r o v i d e f o r l e f t - h a n d t u r n s from 2 4 t h

Street W e s t . Also i n 1978, t h e C i t y c r e a t e d a l i g h t i n g

maintenance d i s t r i c t t o p r o v i d e l i g h t i n g f o r t h e a r t e r i a l .

The l i g h t s used w e r e of a h i g h e r i n t e n s i t y t h a n n o r m a l l y

found on a r e s i d e n t i a l s t r e e t . S e v e r a l of t h e p l a i n t i f f s

protested t h e proposal f o r t h e l i g h t i n g d i s t r i c t , but t h e i r

p r o t e s t w a s d e n i e d a s i n s u f f i c i e n t when numbered a g a i n s t a l l

of t h e p r o p e r t i e s t h a t w e r e i n c l u d e d i n t h e l i g h t i n g maintenance

district.

A l s o i n 1978, t h e p l a i n t i f f s p e t i t i o n e d t h e C i t y C o u n c i l

of B i l l i n g s f o r a zoning change which would p e r m i t p l a i n t i f f s '

p r o p e r t i e s t o be r e c l a s s i f i e d r e s i d e n t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l .

However, a p r o t e s t from t h e remaining p r o p e r t y owners i n

L i l l i s Subdivision, l o c a t e d on streets o t h e r t h a n 2 4 t h

S t r e e t West, t r i g g e r e d t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f s e c t i o n 76-2-305,

MCA. S e c t i o n 76-2-305 p r o v i d e s t h a t a proposed zoning change

t h a t i s p r o t e s t e d s h a l l n o t become e f f e c t i v e e x c e p t by a favorable vote of three-fourths of all the members of the city council. In this case, the proposed zoning change was defeated because only six of the ten council members, not the required three-fourths, voted in favor of the change. In consequence, plaintiffs' properties remain zoned R-7200 for residential purposes only. After the failure of their petition for a zoning change, the plaintiffs filed this action against the City of Billings charging inverse condemnation of their properties. At trial, plaintiffs' witnesses characterized the changes that had occurred on 24th Street West. Formerly it was relatively quiet, and had but two traffic lanes. The front yards of the residences were suitable for family or social gatherings. Residents or their guests could park their cars on the street. There was no difficulty getting in and out of driveways. Sidewalks were safe from passing traffic. Noise and pollutant levels were low and not distracting or harmful. There was no undue refuse. Family pets were safe. There was no noticeable vibration from passing traffic and the area was quiet at night. After the 1976-78 condemnation project on 24th Street West was completed, conditions changed. There is now no free access into driveways, but instead long waits in the fifth lane for passing traffic. Free access to and from the driveways is nearly impossible. There have been traffic

accidents in front of the residential properties, and sometimes upon their properties. Children and pets are not safe in the front yards and pedestrian traffic along the sidewalks a few feet from passing vehicular traffic is dangerous. Average traffic flows at 22 miles per hour past their houses. Rocks and rubbish from passing traffic are thrown upon their lawns and i n t o t h e i r houses. The s i d e w a l k s a r e c o n s t a n t l y f i l t h y ,

especially i n winter. The n o i s e from t h e p a s s i n g t r a f f i c i s

s o l o u d t h a t f r o n t d o o r s must be c l o s e d f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n t o

be heard inside. T r a f f i c n o i s e i s l o u d and a g g r a v a t i n g a t

night. The houses c a n n o t be v e n t i l a t e d from t h e e a s t s i d e

b e c a u s e of d u s t and e x h a u s t fumes. The houses and c o n t e n t s

a r e c o n s t a n t l y s u b j e c t t o v i b r a t i o n s . One of t h e r e s i d e n t s

t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e had t o t a p e h e r windows t o a v o i d t h e

b r i g h t l i g h t from t h e h i g h i n t e n s i t y sodium vapor l i g h t i n g

t h a t was i n s t a l l e d .

There a p p e a r s t o b e g e n e r a l agreement t h a t t h e houses

a r e unsuitable f o r residential living. A local realtor

t e s t i f i e d t h a t it w a s " i n a p p r o p r i a t e " t h a t t h e p r o p e r t i e s be

zoned s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l . The former c i t y e n g i n e e r ,

though t e s t i f y i n g f o r t h e C i t y , s t a t e d t h a t he would " n o t

want t o l i v e i n one o f t h o s e h o u s e s . " The C i t y P l a n n i n g Depart-

ment r e p r e s e n t a t i v e t e s t i f i e d t h a t h e d o e s n o t c o n s i d e r it

a p p r o p r i a t e t o have r e s i d e n t i a l h o u s i n g a l o n g t h a t s e c t i o n

of 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t . The C i t y Zoning Commission i n f a c t

recommended t h e zoning change which w a s d e n i e d by t h e C i t y

Council. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t s a i d :

"By r e a s o n of changed c o n d i t i o n s on 2 4 t h S t r e e t West, s a i d p r o p e r t i e s a r e no l o n g e r d e s i r a b l e f o r r e s i d e n t i a l u s e and c a n n o t be p u t t o t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e w i t h o u t a change i n zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s and r e g u l a t i o n s . "

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , however, found t h a t t h e c o n d i t i o n s

on 2 4 t h S t r e e t West w e r e n o t c a u s e d by t h e C i t y b u t by p e r s o n s

u s i n g b u s i n e s s e s t a b l i s h m e n t s s i t u a t e d on 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t ;

t h a t t h e widening p r o j e c t of 1 9 7 8 merely accomodated t h e

e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c i n a "more e f f i c i e n t , more s a f e , less n o i s y

manner and w i t h less p o l l u t i o n p o t e n t i a l ; " t h a t t h e deed

r e s t r i c t i o n s w e r e more r e s t r i c t i v e t h a n t h e R-7200 zoning; t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e a l p r o p e r t i e s w e r e less v a l u a b l e i n

t h e i r p r e s e n t s i t u s t h a n t h e y would b e i n a d i f f e r e n t neighborhood,

b u t t h a t n e v e r t h e l e s s t h e v a l u e of t h e i r r e a l p r o p e r t i e s had

n o t been s u f f i c i e n t l y l e s s e n e d t o c o n s t i t u t e a t a k i n g by t h e

C i t y o f B i l l i n g s ; t h a t t h e a c t i o n s of t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s

w e r e w i t h i n t h e p r o p e r e x e r c i s e of t h e C i t y ' s p o l i c e power. I s s u e s r a i s e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r e t h a t (1) t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h e r e was no i n v e r s e condemnation;

( 2 ) t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e C i t y of

B i l l i n g s a c t e d w i t h i n i t s p o l i c e power and t h a t it w a s n o t

l i a b l e f o r damages; ( 3 ) t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f a i l i n g

t o t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of i t s own f i l e s and d e c i s i o n s i n

two c i v i l c a u s e s i n v o l v i n g r e s t r i c t i o n s on nearby p r o p e r t i e s ;

and ( 4 ) t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e r r e d i n h o l d i n g t h a t t h e p r i v a t e

deed r e s t r i c t i o n s p r e c l u d e d any c l a i m f o r damages f o r i n v e r s e

condemnation.

The C i t y c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e o n l y i s s u e s on t h i s a p p e a l

a r e whether t h e C i t y c a u s e d t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' r e a l p r o p e r t i e s t o

b e i n v e r s e l y condemned b e c a u s e of changes i n t h e c o n d i t i o n s

of 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t o r by f a i l u r e t o g r a n t a zone change o r

both.

W e t u r n f i r s t t o a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of whether under t h e

f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , a n i n v e r s e condemnation of p l a i n t i f f s '

propertksoccurred. The C i t y v i g o r o u s l y c o n t e n d s , and t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g r e e d , t h a t t h e a c t i o n s of t h e C i t y w e r e in

r e s p o n s e t o t h e burgeoning development of commercial and

o t h e r e n t e r p r i s e s along 24th S t r e e t W e s t . The C i t y f u r t h e r

c o n t e n d s , and t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a g r e e d , t h a t t h e C i t y , i n r e s p o n d i n g

t o t h o s e burgeoning p r e s s u r e s , v a l i d l y e x e r c i s e d i t s p o l i c e

power i n widening t h e s t r e e t , i n s t a l l i n g h i g h i n t e n s i t y

l i g h t s , and p r o v i d i n g t r a f f i c s i g n a l s t o f a c i l i t a t e a g r e a t e r flow of traffic past plaintiffs' properties. In essence, the City is claiming, and the District Court agreed, that it did not create the business growth, it merely adapted to it. It is probable that there are few, if any, cases of inverse condemnation in which the same argument could not be made. In that area of law where inverse condemnation has most notably expanded--where airports have been constructed in populated areas and the resultant low-flying landing and take-off of jets has disturbed residential properties-- it is certainly true that the airport authorities have merely adapted to changing transportation patterns from land traffic to air traffic in providing airports. Yet the cases recognize that inverse condemnation has occurred, and recovery is allowed on the principle that an "air easement" has been taken, Griggs v. County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania (1962), 369 U.S. 84, 82 S.Ct. 531, 7 L.Ed.2d 585; United States v. Causby (1946), 328 U.S. 256, 66 S.Ct. 1062, 90 L.Ed. 1206; or upon the theory of nuisance, Thornburg v. Port of Portland (1962), 233 Or. 178, 376 P.2d 100. It is not, however, a complete defense to an inverse condemnation suit that the authority was exercising police power. There is no question that here the City of Billings was validly exercising its police power. That fact, however, standing alone, does not prevent an inverse condemnation suit. In Mattoon v. City of Norman (Okla. 1980), 617 P.2d 1347, the plaintiff commenced a class action for inverse con-

demnation against the City because of the adoption of a flood plain ordinance which operated to take plaintiff's property without due process of law. The city claimed it was validly exercising its police power. The Oklahoma court

said: "The d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t t h e Ordinance i s a v a l i d e x e r c i s e o f i t s p o l i c e power t h r o u g h zoning and c a n n o t c o n s t i t u t e a governmental ' t a k i n g e of p r o p e r t y . T h i s i s n o t t h e t e s t i n Oklahoma. W e have n e v e r h e l d t h a t a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e e x e r c i s e o f p o l i c e power i s v a l i d a b s o l u t e l y p r e c l u d e s compensation f o r p r o p e r t y t a k e n o r damaged by such exercise. I n EClting c a s e s ] , w e s a i d :

" ' I t i s a u n i v e r s a l p r i n c i p l e t h a t wherever an i n d i v i d u a l ' s r i g h t o f ownership of p r o p e r t y i s r e c o g n i z e d i n a f r e e government, o t h e r r i g h t s become w o r t h l e s s i f t h e government p o s s e s s e s uncon- t r o l l a b l e power o v e r t h e p r o p e r t y of t h e i n d i v i d u a l . The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l g u a r a n t y of t h e r i g h t t o own and use property i s unquestioned. Thus t h e c l a i m t h a t p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n i s t a k e n under t h e p o l i c e power c a n n o t j u s t i f y d i s r e g a r d of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i n h i b i t i o n s . ' " 617 P.2d a t 1349.

Nor i s i t i m p o r t a n t t h a t a n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l t a k i n g of

t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' properties h a s n o t o c c u r r e d . Montana h a s a

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l provision, A r t . 11, 5 29, which s t a t e s :

"Eminent Domain,. Private property s h a l l not b e t a k e n o r damaged f o r p u b l i c u s e w i t h o u t j u s t compensation t o t h e f u l l e x t e n t of t h e l o s s h a v i n g been f i r s t made t o o r p a i d i n t o c o u r t f o r t h e owner. 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 e x p e n s e s of l i t i g a t i o n t o be 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 . " (Emphasis added. )

T h i s c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d i n v e r s e condemnation w i t h o u t

p h y s i c a l i n v a s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y i n Less v. C i t y of B u t t e

( 1 9 0 3 ) , 28 Mont. 27, 72 P . 140. There t h e c o u r t r e c o g n i z e d

t h e words " o r damaged" i n t h e t h e n e x i s t i n g c o n s t i t u t i o n and

said:

" I t s e e m s very c l e a r t o us t h a t t h i s s e c t i o n was d r a f t e d i n t h e b r o a d l a n g u a g e s t a t e d f o r t h e e x p r e s s p u r p o s e of p r e v e n t i n g an u n j u s t o r a r b i t r a r y e x e r c i s e o f t h e power of eminent domain. It overturns the doctrine t h a t o n e owning c i t y o r town p r o p e r t y must c o n t i n u a l l y l i v e i n d r e a d of t h e c h a n g i n g whims of s u c c e s s i v e b o a r d s of aldermen. C o n s t i t u t i o n s which p r o v i d e t h a t ' p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y s h a l l n o t be taken f o r public use without j u s t compensation' a r e b u t d e c l a r a t o r y of t h e common law, and c o n t e m p l a t e t h e p h y s i c a l t a k i n g of p r o p e r t y o n l y . Under c o n s t i t u t i o n s which p r o v i d e t h a t p r o p e r t y s h a l l n o t be ' t a k e n o r damaged' i t i s u n i v e r s a l l y held t h a t 'it i s not necessary t h a t t h e r e b e any p h y s i c a l i n v a s i o n of t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p r o p e r t y f o r p u b l i c u s e t o e n t i t l e him t o compensa- tion." 72 P. a t 1 4 1 .

The r e s p e c t e d former c h i e f judge of t h e C o u r t of Appeals

f o r t h e T e n t h C i r c u i t , t h e Hon. A l f r e d Murrah, proposed t h i s

t e s t , though w r i t i n g i n a d i s s e n t , f o r i n v e r s e condemnation:

"As I r e a s o n , t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t e s t in e a c h c a s e i s f i r s t , whether t h e a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t i s one which t h e law w i l l p r o t e c t ; i f s o , whether t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e i s s u f f i c i e n t l y d i r e c t , s u f f i c i e n t l y p e c u l i a r , and o f s u f f i c i e n t magnitude t o c a u s e u s t o c o n c l u d e t h a t f a i r n e s s and j u s t i c e , a s between t h e S t a t e and t h e c i t i z e n , r e q u i r e s t h e burden imposed t o b e b o r n e by t h e p u b l i c and n o t by t h e i n d i v i d u a l alone." B a t t e n v. United S t a t e s ( 1 0 t h C i r . 1 9 6 2 ) , 306 F. 2d 580, 587, c e r t . d e n . , 371 U . S . 955, 83 S.Ct. 506, 9 L.Ed.2d 502.

Here t h e a s s e r t e d i n t e r e s t of t h e p r o p e r t y owners is

one which t h e law w i l l p r o t e c t . Certainly the right t o the

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

s u c h c a s e s as Causby and G r i g g s , s u p r a . The i n t e r f e r e n c e

w i t h p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s h a s been d i r e c t ; i t i s p e c u l i a r

i n t h e s e n s e t h a t t h e f a c t s h e r e are u n i q u e ; and t h e i n t e r -

f e r e n c e i s o f s u f f i c i e n t c o n s t i t u t i o n a l magnitude s i n c e t h e

proof i n t h i s c a s e showed t h a t t h e r e had been a 20 t o 30

p e r c e n t r e d u c t i o n i n t h e v a l u e of t h e i n d i v i d u a l r e s i d e n t i a l

p r o p e r t i e s , and t h a t t h e v a l u e of e a c h " a s i s " i s $10,000 t o

$15,000 less t h a n t h e i r v a l u e s i f t h e a r e a w e r e zoned r e s i d e n t i a l

professional. Though no p h y s i c a l t a k i n g h a s o c c u r r e d , t h e

r e s u l t of t h e C i t y ' s a c t i o n s h a s been t o impose a s e r v i t u d e ,

a l i m i t a t i o n upon t h e u s e and m a r k e t a b i l i t y of p l a i n t i f f s '

properties a s residential.

Not t o be f o r g o t t e n i s t h e condemnation by t h e C i t y of

p r o p e r t y from one s i d e o f t h e s t r e e t , and n o t from t h e

o t h e r s i d e where t h e p l a i n t i f f s r e s i d e , i n t h e 1976-78 widening of 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t . The owners on t h e e a s t s i d e o f t h e

s t r e e t w e r e compensated e i t h e r i n eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g s ,

o r by agreement w i t h t h e C i t y . The s i n g l i n g o u t of one

group a s a g a i n s t a n o t h e r t o b e a r a burden weighed h e a v i l y i n

Branning v. United S t a t e s . ( C t . C 1 . 1981) , 654 F . 2d 88. In

t h a t c a s e , t r a i n e e s a t a U n i t e d S t a t e s Marine Corps A i r

S t a t i o n , i n p r a c t i c i n g f o r l a n d i n g s on c a r r i e r d e c k s , w e r e

r e q u i r e d t o h o l d t h e i r j e t a i r p l a n e s w i t h n o s e s up and t a i l s

down, and w i t h n e a r maximum power and n o i s e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h

low speed. T h i s e x e r c i s e was conducted o v e r t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s

land. The A i r Corps c o u l d have performed t h i s e x e r c i s e

elsewhere b u t s e l e c t e d a i r space over t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s land

f o r i t b e c a u s e a l t e r n a t i v e l o c a t i o n s were deemed more o b j e c t i o n -

able. The C o u r t of Claims s a i d :

"Thus, p l a i n t i f f w a s c o n s c i o u s l y s i n g l e d o u t o r s e l e c t e d t o b e a r a burden which d e f e n d a n t a l s o c o n s c i o u s l y e l e c t e d n o t t o impose on o t h e r s , even o t h e r s otherwise s i m i l a r l y s i t u a t e d . This i s a c l a s s i c statement of a taking s i t u a t i o n . " 654' F.2d a t 90.

W e t h e r e f o r e h o l d and c o n c l u d e t h a t under t h e u n i q u e

f a c t s of t h i s c a s e , t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s , a l t h o u g h e x e r c i s i n g

i t s p o l i c e power v a l i d l y , and v a l i d l y r e f u s i n g t o amend i t s

zoning o r d i n a n c e on p l a i n t i f f s ' p e t i t i o n , n o n e t h e l e s s t h e r e b y

i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t s of t h e p l a i n t i f f

s o a s t o c o n s t i t u t e a " t a k i n g " by i n v e r s e condemnation.

W e caution t h a t t h i s holding i s l i m i t e d t o t h e s i t u a t i o n here,

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

W e t u r n now t o c o n s i d e r whether t h e d e c l a r a t i o n of

r e s t r i c t i o n s of L i l l i s S u b d i v i s i o n l i m i t i n g t h e u s e o f

p l a i n t i f f s ' l o t s t o r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s u n t i l t h e y e a r 2000

p r e v e n t s r e c o v e r y t h r o u g h i n v e r s e condemnation.

On a n a l y s i s o n e must concede, i t seems t o u s , t h a t t h e

p r e s e n c e o f t h e p r i v a t e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s i n L i l l i s S u b d i v i s o n i s a non s e q u i t u r a s a d e f e n s e t o i n v e r s e condemnation h e r e .

The r e s t r i c t i o n s c o n t e m p l a t e t h e u s e of p l a i n t i f f s ' r e s i d e n c e s

f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. I t is not t h e r e s t r i c t i o n s t h a t

a r e damaging p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s ; i t i s t h e a c t i o n of t h e

C i t y i n making t h e improvements t h a t i s making t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s

n e a r l y u n u s a b l e and unmarketable f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s .

Under s e c t i o n 76-2-305, MCA, t h e C i t y Council v a l i d l y refused

t o amend t h e zoning o r d i n a n c e f o r p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s t o

r e c l a s s i f y t o r e s i d e n t i a l p r o f e s s i o n a l , which would have

substantially mitigated t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' losses. The v a l i d

r e f u s a l o f a zoning amendment, which n a i l e d down t h e s e r v i t u d e

imposed o n p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s , s t a n d s on no h i g h e r

ground, i n s o f a r a s i n v e r s e condemnation i s c o n c e r n e d , t h a n

a v a l i d e x e r c i s e of p o l i c e power. What r e m a i n s , above a l l ,

a f t e r t h e C i t y has acted, v a l i d l y o r i n v a l i d l y , i s t h a t

p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t i e s , t h r o u g h t h e a c t i o n s of t h e C i t y ,

have become u n s u i t a b l e f o r r e s i d e n t i a l u s e , and t h e p l a i n t i f f s '

r i g h t t o u s e t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s a s c o n t e m p l a t e d by t h e deed

r e s t r i c t i o n s i s l i m i t e d t o a d e g r e e o f c o n s t i t u t i o n a l magnitude.

I n t h i s c o n n e c t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s asked d u r i n g t h e t r i a l

t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of two of i t s

own f i l e s , wherein t h e same D i s t r i c t C o u r t had h e l d t h a t

similar restrictions on nearby p r o p e r t i e s w e r e v o i d and

u n e n f o r c e a b l e by r e a s o n of t h e changed c o n d i t i o n s on and

near 24th S t r e e t W e s t . While t h e f i l e s w e r e c e r t a i n l y r e l e v a n t

under t h e view t a k e n by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e deed

r e s t r i c t i o n s prevented p l a i n t i f f s ' recovery i n inverse

condemnation, i k i s o u r view t h a t t h e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s o n l y

c o n t e m p l a t e a r e s i d e n t i a l u s e which c a n n o t now be o b t a i n e d

by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . I t i s t h e r e f o r e immaterial t o our d e c i s i o n

t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i d not t a k e j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e

o f f e r e d c i v i l f i l e s , b e c a u s e t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h e deed r e s t r i c t i o n s i s not a bar t o p l a i n t i f f s ' action for inverse

The f i n d i n g of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t h a t t h e improvement

of 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t "accomodates t h e e x i s t i n g t r a f f i c i n a

more e f f i c i e n t , more s a f e , less n o i s y manner and w i t h less

p o l l u t i o n p o t e n t i a l " i s c l e a r l y erroneous. Rule 5 2 ( a ) ,

M.R.Civ.P. The p l a i n t i f f s h e r e t e s t i f i e d i n d e t a i l a s t o

t h e e f f e c t of t h e improvements and t h e c o n d i t i o n s which s e v e r e l y

l i m i t e d t h e use of t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes.

The t e s t i m o n y of t h e c i t y e n g i n e e r , on which t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t a p p a r e n t l y r e l i e d , was t a k e n from n a t i o n a l s t u d i e s and

n a t i o n a l g u i d e s f o r improvements, n o t d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d t o

p l a i n t i f f s ' properties. No a t t e m p t was made by t h e C i t y t o

r e b u t t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e p r o p e r t y owners a s t o n o i s e ,

t r a f f i c and p o l l u t i o n .

The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , i n i t s f i n d i n g s , s e t f o r t h t h e

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

a s compared t o t h e i r " a s i s " v a l u e s a f t e r t h e 1976-78 improvements

t o 24th S t r e e t W e s t . I n each i n s t a n c e t h e p r i c e paid f o r

t h e p r o p e r t y i s less t h a n t h e " a s i s " v a l u e . Thus, t h e

D i s t r i c t C o u r t a p p a r e n t l y found no damages s u f f e r e d by

plaintiffs. I n e f f e c t , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t gave t h e C i t y t h e

a d v a n t a g e o f i n f l a t i o n , which h a s a f f e c t e d t h e v a l u e n o t o n l y

of p r o p e r t y on 2 4 t h S t r e e t W e s t , b u t of a l l r e a l p r o p e r t y i n

Billings. However, t h e measure o f damages i n a n i n v e r s e

condemnation c a s e i s t h e d i f f e r e n c e between t h e f a i r market v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y b e f o r e and a f t e r t h e condemnation. The

r e l e v a n t v a l u e s i n t h i s c a s e a r e t h e f a i r market v a l u e as

r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y b e f o r e t h e condemnation, and t h e f a i r

market v a l u e by r e a s o n of t h e d e p r e c i a t i o n a s r e s i d e n t i a l

p r o p e r t y (see s e c t i o n 70-30-302, MCA), where t h e p r o p e r t y

n o t t a k e n h a s been i n j u r i o u s l y a f f e c t e d . I n c a s e i t i s i m p o r t a n t a f t e r remand, t h e r i g h t t o an

i n v e r s e condemnation remedy does n o t p a s s t o s u b s e q u e n t

p u r c h a s e r s a f t e r t h e i n v e r s e condemnation. Williams v. C i t y

o f Valdez (Alaska 1 9 8 1 ) , 6 2 4 P.2d 820.

W t h e r e f o r e remand t h i s c a u s e t o t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e

w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o e n t e r an o r d e r t h e r e i n t h a t t h e r e s i d e n t i a l

p r o p e r t i e s o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s have been i n v e r s e l y condemned

by t h e C i t y of B i l l i n g s i n making t h e improvements t o 2 4 t h

S t r e e t W e s t i n 1976-78, which o r d e r s h a l l s e r v e t h e o f f i c e

of a p r e l i m i n a r y condemnation o r d e r a s p r o v i d e d i n s e c t i o n

70-30-206(2), MCA; and t h e r e u p o n t o t a k e such f u r t h e r n r o c e e d i n g s

under t h e s t a t u t e s r e l a t i n g t o eminent domain as s h a l l

d e t e r m i n e t h e damages, i f any, s u s t a i n e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . /1

,J /

LJ-6L2--4--hLLk;$ Justice &----

". W e Concur:

\ chief Justice,