Matter of Creation of West Great F

• Court: Montana Supreme Court
• Decided: July 16, 1982
• Docket: 81-559
• Status: Published

Opinion

No. 81-559 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

TN THE MATTER OF: THE CREATION OF THE WEST GREAT FALLS FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT Ex Rel: RICHARD AND GERDA GREENWOOD Appellants.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Hon. H. William Coder, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record: For Appellants:

Leo Graybill, Jr., Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg, & Matteucci, Great Falls, Montana

- -- Submitted on Briefs: Nay 6 , 1982 Decided: July 16, 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 .

A p p e l l a n t s own t e n p l a t t e d l o t s i n t h e Sun R i v e r P a r k

A d d i t i o n on t h e w e s t s i d e o f G r e a t F a l l s . The West G r e a t

Falls Flood C o n t r o l and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t condemned these

l o t s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b u i l d i n g a l e v e e t h e r e o n and o f f e r e d

the appellants approximately $35,000 for the land. The

drainage project's appraiser based t h i s valuation upon

c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e l a n d a s a s i n g l e t r a c t . The a p p e l l a n t s

c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $55,000--the

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

ten platted lots.

The appellants filed a remonstrance in the Cascade

County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and t h e m a t t e r was h e a r d on J a n u a r y

7 , 1 9 8 1 , and F e b r u a r y 2 - 4 , 1981. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r e d

t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o come f o r w a r d w i t h t h e i r e v i d e n c e and g a v e

them t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e i r damages.

The District Court awarded the appellants approxi-

mately $38,000. This figure was approximately the same

value that the Drainage D i s t r i c t had recommended that the

a p p e l l a n t s be awarded. This appeal followed.

The i s s u e s on a p p e a l c a n be summarized a s f o l l o w s :

1. D t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a v e a r i g h t t o be c o m p e n s a t e d o

for their land according to its value as platted lots,

r a t h e r than according t o its value a s a s i n g l e t r a c t ?

2. Who has the burden of proof in this type of

p r o c e e d i n g and i n what o r d e r s h o u l d i t be p r e s e n t e d ?

Appellants contend t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e i r l a n d was s u b -

d i v i d e d and t h e p l a t r e c o r d e d , i t s h o u l d h a v e been v a l u e d on

an i n d i v i d u a l l o t b a s i s r a t h e r t h a n a s a whole t r a c t . The

a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e l a n d must be d i v i d e d i n t o l o t s f o r i t s h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e - - r e s i d e n t i a l property.

I n S t a t e v . H o b l i t t ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 87 Mont. 403, 288 P. 181,

this Court discussed the method that must be applied to

a r r i v e a t t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e by s t a t i n g :

"The owner h a s t h e r i g h t t o o b t a i n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d . b a s e d uDon i t s a v a i l a b i l - ------- i t y f o r t h e m o s t v a l u a b l e -u r p o s e f o r w h i c h p- - - i t c a n be used, whether s o used o r n o t .................................... (Montana Ry. Co. v , W a r r e n , 6 Mont. 275, 1 2 - P. 641), b u t t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a p u r p o s e means c a p a b l e o f b e----- s e d - f o- t h e p u r p o- ing u - -r- - se ( W e b s t e r t s New I n t . D i c t i o n a r y ) , a n d , a s t h e m a r k e..................................u m m o n s t value a t the d a t e of t h e s c o n t r o l s , t h e l a n d m u s t b e shown t o h a v e b e e n marketable a t t h a t time f o r t h e purpose s t a t e d ( I n r e N i a g a r a Power Co., 1 3 3 Misc. Rep. 1 7 7 , 231 N.Y.S. 7 2 ) ; t h e showing must be t h a t t h e u s e is one t o which t h e l a n d may r e a s o n a b l y be a p p l i e d ( B l o x t o n v . Highway Commission, 225 Ky. 324, 8 S.W.2d 3 9 2 ) , s u c h a s would p r o b a b l y a f f e c t a p u r c h a s e r (Emmons v . U t i l i t i e s Co., 83 N . H . 1 8 1 , 1 4 1 A. 6 5 , 58 A.L.R. 788).

" L e w i s , i n h i s work on Eminent Domain ( 3 d Ed.) v o l . 2 , p. 1 2 3 2 , s a y s : ' I t is s a i d i n some c a s e s t h a t i t i s p r o p e r t o c o n s i d e r e v e r y e l e m e n t of v a l u e which would be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a s a l e between p r i v a t e parties. But t h i s n e e d s some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , s i n c e remote and s p e c u l a t i v e r e a s o n s a r e o f t e n u r g e d by t h e s e l l e r i n s u p p o r t of t h e v a l u a t i o n claimed. Some c a s e s s a y t h e owner is e n t i t l e d t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e t o which i t is adapted, T h i s is t r u e so f a r a s such adapta- t i o n a f f e c t s t h e m a r k e t v a l u e . But t h e p r o p e r i n q u i r y i s , n o t what i s t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r any p a r t i c u l a r u s e , b u t what i s i t w o r t h on t h e m a r k e t , i n v i e w o f i t s adap- t a t i o n f o r t h a t o r any o t h e r u s e . '

" S p e c u l a t i v e u s e s , remote and c o n j e c t u r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a r e n o t t o be t a k e n i n t o con- s i d e r a t i o n , a s t h e land must, a t t h e d a t e of t h e summons, h a v e been ' a v a i l a b l e ' f o r t h e more v a l u a b l e u s e shown ., . "The r u l e announced i n t h e Warren and F o r b i s C a s e s , a b o v e , m u s t be a p p l i e d i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n t h a t compensation must be d e t e r m i n e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e l a n d a t t h e d a t e o f t h e summons, a n d , w h i l e t h e owner i s e n t i t l e d t o show t h e m o s t v a l u a b l e u s e f o r which t h e l a n d i s a v a i l a b l e , t h i s is merely f o r t h e purpose of f i x i n g t h e a c t u a l h i g h e s t market v a l u e a t t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d , and d i s c u s s i o n of u s e s t o which t h e l a n d i s n o t t h e n p u t i s b u t s a l e s t a l k , p e r s u a s i v e o n l y i n s o f a r a s i t would convince a prospective purchaser t h a t t h e p r i c e asked is r e a s o n a b l e under a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a ~ ~ c eshown; t h e j u r y s t a n d s i n t h e s p o s i t i o n of t h e purchaser. For t h i s r e a s o n i t i s s a i d t h e t e s t i s , 'What is t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e l a n d condemned f o r a n y commer- c i a l v a l u e [ u s e ? ] of i t s own i n t h e i m m e d i a t e present, or i n reasonable a n t i c i p a t i o n in t h e near future? . .", 288 P. a t 185-186.

The most important language from H o b l i t t applicable

here is, "to be available for a purpose c a p a b l e of being

used f o r t h a t purpose, . . . the l a n d must be shown t o h a v e

been m a r k e t a b l e a t t h a t time f o r t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d . . ." Here, the l a n d was u n f i t for t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d by a p p e l -

lants because there were flood zoning restrictions which

p r e v e n t e d t h e l a n d from b e i n g used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s .

Also, t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n from the record that these

restrictions will be lifted before the project is

completed.

The second issue raised by appellants concerns the

procedural question of who has the burden of proof in a

drainage district condemnation action and in what order

s h o u l d i t be p r e s e n t e d , I t i s e v i d e n t from t h e r e c o r d t h a t

the appellants did not r a i s e t h i s issue a t the t r i a l court

level. There are no citations necessary, for it is

a x i o m a t i c t h a t u n l e s s a n i s s u e is r a i s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t

l e v e l i t w i l l n o t be a d d r e s s e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t u n l e s s t h e i s s u e r a i s e d is of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l import.

The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W concur: e

Chief J u s t i c e