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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
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