Montana Power Co. v. Carey

Opinion

No. 84-529 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

THE MONTANA POWER COPIPANY, A Montana corporation, Plaintiff,

MARTIN CAREY, WALT DUTTON , JESSIE S. FELSHEIM, SUSMTPJE L. HUCKABA, MARY LEAVITT, et al.

Defendants and Appellants, and IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL WATER USE PERMIT NO. 24921-s41e by REMI & BETTY JO MONFORTOW, Petitioners and Respondents.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Eonorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: W. William Leaphart argued for Buckaba & Felsheim, Helena, Montana John R. Kline, Helena, Montana For Respondents: P4oore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling; Perry J. Moore argued for Monfortons, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman; R. Paul Stahl argued for Montana Power, Helena, PIontana Ted Doney, Helena, Montana

Submitted: April 17, 1985

Decided: June 6, 1985

- Clerk M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, in

and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k , which d e n i e d a t t o r n e y

f e e s t o S u s a n n e Huckaba a n d J e s s i e S. Felsheim, appellants,

u n d e r s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA.

Remi and Betty Jo Monforton (hereinafter Monfortons)

a p p l i e d t o t h e Department o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and Conserva-

tion ( h e r e i n a f t e r DNRC) f o r a w a t e r u s e p e r m i t t o a p p r o p r i a t e

water f r o m Cold S p r i n g s , a t r i b u t a r y o f t h e Boulder River.

The Montana Power Company ( h e r e i n a f t e r MPC) and a p p e l l a n t s ,

filed objections to the application. On March 1, 1982,

f o l l o w i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g w h e r e a p p e l l a n t s and a l l o b j e c t o r s

w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d , t h e DNRC i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e

p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n e d upon s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s .

In April, 1982, the Monfortons filed a petition for

judicial review of the DNRC's final order and sought to

remove the conditions on the permit. Likewise, MPC, an

objector t o the application, filed a petition f o r judic.ia1

review of the DNRC's final order. The petitions A'F~Y.E~

consolidated. Following a hearing on the petitions, the

District Court ruled that the time limitations and other

requirements placed upon the Monforton permit by the DNRC

s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d t h e Monfortons' right t o appropriate

water. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p o s e d a t t o r n e y f e e s upon M C a n d P

appellants. The appellants and MC P appealed the District

Court decision t o t h i s Court. I n Montana Power Company v .

Carey (Mont. 19841, 685 P.2d 336, 41 St.Rep. 1233, the

District Court order was reversed and the DNRC o r d e r was

reinstated. As t o attorney fees, t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e

M o n f o r t o n s w e r e n o t t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " and t h u s , w e r e n o t entitled t o attorney fees. The a p p e l l a n t s t h e n p e t i t i o n e d

t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an award of attorney fees i n their

favor contending t h a t they, r a t h e r t h a n t h e Monfortons, were

the "prevailing party" under section 85-2-125, MCA.

A p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .

On appeal, w are concerned w i t h one issue. Whether

a p p e l l a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under

s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA.

The a p p e l l a n t s maintain because the Monfortons' claim

for attorney fees was denied in Montana Power Company v.

Carey, supra, 685 P.2d a t 341, t h e Monfortons w e r e n o t t h e

"prevailing party." Moreover, because t h e Montana Supreme

Court ruled in their f a v o r by r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t

r u l i n g which increased t h e water right application, appel-

lants submit t h a t they ultimately prevailed i n t h i s matter

and t h e r e f o r e w e r e e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s .

The question regarding attorney fees was fully

c o n s i d e r e d , d e t e r m i n e d and a d j u d g e d i n Montana Power Company

v. Carey, supra. The final paragraph in that decision

stated:

"In conjunction with t h i s ruling, t h e Monforton's [ s i c ] claim f o r attorney f e e s must be d e n i e d . Since t h e f i n a l o r d e r o f t h e DNRC i s a f f i r m e d , the Monfortons a r e n o t t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and c a n n o t r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from t h e respondents." Montana Power Company v . C a r e y , 685 P.2d a t 341.

The District Court's d e c i s i o n was reversed. WE! h o l d w i t h this action, e v e r y i s s u e i n c l u d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f award of

a t t o r n e y f e e s was d e t e r m i n e d . The judgment o f t h i s C o u r t i s

conclusive. I t a p p l i e s t o a l l subsequent s t a g e s of t h e cause

including appellants' p e t i t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e

award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . C e n t r a l Montana S t o c k y a r d s v . F r a s e r

( 1 9 5 7 ) , 133 Mont. 1 6 8 , 320 P.2d 981; Brennan v . Jones (1936), 1 0 1 Mont. 550, 5 5 P.2d 697; I n Re S m i t h ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60

Mont. 276, 1 9 9 P. 696.

The Montana P o w e r Company, appearing a s amicus curiae

a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . This

Court w i l l not entertain issues on constitutionality of a

s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n when s u c h i s s u e s are n o t raised by t h e

parties t o the action.

"Since a m i c i c u r i a e a r e n o t p a r t i e s and c a n n o t assume t h e f u n c t i o n s o f p a r t i e s , n o r c r e a t e , extend o r e n l a r g e i s s u e s , we have considered t h e b r i e f s o f amici only insofar a s they coincide with t h e issues r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e action. S e e L o n g v. O ' D e l l ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 60 Wash.2d. 1 5 1 , 372 P.2d 548; C i t y of P h o e n i x v. P h o e n i x C i v i c Aud. a n d Con. C e n t . A s s ' n . ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 9 9 A r i z . 2 7 0 , 408 P.2d 8 1 8 , r e h . den. 100 A r i z . 101, 412 P.2d 43." M o n t a n a W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v. Sager (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 6 2 0 P . 2 d 1 1 8 9 , 3 7 S t . R e p . 1897.

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 .

We concur: /