State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hwys. v. Hy

Montana Supreme Court

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hwys. v. Hy

DecidedFebruary 18, 1976

Docket12988

StatusPublished

This text of State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hwys. v. Hy (State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hwys. v. Hy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

State Ex Rel. Dept. of Hwys. v. Hy, (Mo. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

No. 12988

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN

THE STATE OF MONTANA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA,

P l a i n t i f f s a d Appellants,

HY -GRADE AUTO COURT, a Dissolved Montana

GLYNOEU J. WHITE, .t a t u t o r y T r u s t e e s o f Corpora t i o n ; RONALD C WHITE ; VENETA WHITE ; as S t h e Hygrade Auto C o u r t , a Dissolved Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ; EUTJPH E. MOORE, I N C . ,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel o f Record:

For Appellants :

D a n i e l J , S u l l i v a n argued and James D r i s c o l l a r g u e d , Helena, Montana

F o r Respondents:

H o l t e r , Heath and Kirwan, Bozeman, Montana Robert M. H o l t e r argued, Bozeman, Montana B e r g e r , Anderson, S i n c l a i r & Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana Richard FJ. Anderson a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Yardley and Yardley, L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Dan Yardley a p p e a r e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Huppert and S w i n d l e h u r s t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Arnold Huppert Jr. a p p e a r e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana

Submitted: December 8, 1975

Decided : y?; i'7!r,c , :-',7f Filed : t -4 ; Mr. Chief J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a condemnation j u r y v e r d i c t and

judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County. Hy-Grade Auto C o u r t , i s a d i s s o l v e d Montana c o r p o r a t i o n

holding f e e t i t l e t o s e r v i c e s t a t i o n property i n Gardiner,

Montana. The s t o c k h o l d e r s and s u c c e s s o r s t o w r a d e a r e Veneta

White, Ronald C. White ( h e r s o n ) and Glynora White ( h i s w i f e ) , t h e y w i l l be c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o h e r e i n a s "Owner". Ralph E. Moore, I n c . leases t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n p r o p e r t y from t h e

Owner, and h a s l e a s e d it f o r many y e a r s . This corporation w i l l be r e f e r r e d t o a s " L e s s e e " . There i s a s u b l e s s e e who a c t u a l l y

r u n s t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n , b u t he i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n .

The Montana Department of Highways, (State), filed this

condemnation a c t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s o f u p g r a d i n g U. S. Highway 89 and t h e b r i d g e c r o s s i n g t h e Yellowstone R i v e r i n G a r d i n e r .

The s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s known a s t h e N o r t h g a t e Texaco

s t a t i o n and i s t h e prime s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i t e i n G a r d i n e r . The

p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d on t h e "swing c o r n e r " , meaning it h a s good

v i s a b i l i t y i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s and good access. The highway f o r k s

a t t h e s t a t i o n , o n e f o r k g o i n g t o J a r d i n e , Montana, and t h e o t h e r

c r o s s i n g t h e Yellowstone b r i d g e , and l e a d i n g t o t h e North E n t r a n c e

of Yellowstone N a t i o n a l P a r k . V i r t u a l l y a l l v i s i t o r s t o t h e Park,

e n t e r i n g and l e a v i n g a t G a r d i n e r , p a s s t h e s i t e o f t h e s t a t i o n .

The s t a t i o n pumped o v e r t w i c e a s much g a s a s any o t h e r s t a t i o n i n Gardiner. A f t e r t h e t a k i n g , t h e l a n d l e f t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Owner would n o t be s u f f i c i e n t n o r s u i t a b l e f o r a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i t e . A l l improvements on t h e p r o p e r t y were t a k e n by t h e S t a t e , e i t h e r

a s right-of-way, o r f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n easement.

L e s s e e had l e a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y from t h e Owner s i n c e 1964,

i n f a c t , s i n c e it was b u i l t i n 1948 (under t h e p r e s e n t owner and and i t s p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t ) . The lease i n e f f e c t a t t h e

t i m e of t h i s a c t i o n was d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1, 1968,and p r o v i d e d

f o r a t e n y e a r p r i m a r y t e r m w i t h two a d d i t i o n a l f i v e y e a r re-

newal t e r m s . A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t h e l e a s e had 1 4 y e a r s t o

run.

L e s s e e a l s o o p e r a t e s a s a d i s t r i b u t o r f o r Texaco. It

s e r v i c e s N o r t h g a t e Texaco and e i g h t o t h e r Texaco s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s

i n t h e Livingston-Gardiner area.

P r i o r t o t h e jury t r i a l , t h e S t a t e requested a bifurcated

t r i a l , t h a t i s , i n t h e S t a t e ' s view, t h e j u r y would f i r s t d e c i d e

t h e t o t a l v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y t a k e n ( a s though owned by o n e p e r -

s o n ) , subsequently receiving evidence as t o t h e value of each

i n t e r e s t i n t h e whole; d e c i d i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n i n a s e p a r a t e d e l -

iberation. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t conducted a s i n g l e t r i a l , p e r m i t t e d

t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e on t h e t o t a l v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y ,

and t h e v a l u e s of t h e two i n t e r e s t s . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t o

a r r i v e a t a t o t a l v a l u e f i r s t , and t h e n a p p o r t i o n t h a t award be-

tween Owner and L e s s e e , a l l d u r i n g o n e d e l i b e r a t i o n .

A t t r i a l defendants' expert witnesses t e s t i f i e d t o t h e

t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , r a n g i n g i n t h e i r e s t i m a t e s from a

h i g h o f $135,000 ( a n estimate by t h e L e s s e e ) t o a low of $100,000

( a n e s t i m a t e by a Texaco l a n d a p p r a i s e r ) . The two a p p r a i s e r s

t e s t i f y i n g f o r t h e S t a t e g a v e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s of $41,200 and

The j u r y r e t u r n e d t h i s v e r d i c t :

"We t h e J u r y , d u l y i m p a n e l l e d , r e a c h o u r v e r d i c t i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d Cause, a s f o l l o w s :

"1. For t h e v a l u e o f t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g s a c t u a l l y t a k e n , t h e sum o f $100,000

"2. For t h e damage t o t h e l a n d r e m a i n i n g a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e sum o f $

" 3 . T o t a l owing t o b o t h D e f e n d a n t s ( t o t a l of t h e above Two ( 2 ) f i g u r e s , t h e sum of $100,000 "Out of t h e t o t a l compensation awarded t o b o t h D e f e n d a n t s , a s above s t a t e d , w e f u r t h e r b r e a k t h e award down between t h e D e f e n d a n t s , a s f o l l o w s :

"1. To Defendant, Ralph E . Moore, I n c . , a s Lessee, t h e sum of $ 50,000

"2. To Defendant, Hy-Grade Auto C o u r t t h e sum o f $ 50,000"

Judgment w a s e n t e r e d on t h e v e r d i c t October 4 , 1974.

The judgment a l l o w e d i n t e r e s t , t o Owner and L e s s e e , from t h e

d a t e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation, J u n e 1 9 , 1973.

The S t a t e a p p e a l s from t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment.

Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e f o r r e v i e w :

1. I n a n eminent domain a c t i o n , what i s t h e p r o p e r pro-

c e d u r e t o be f o l l o w e d a t t r i a l t o conform t o t h e s t a t u t o r y re-

q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 1 2 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1947?

2.

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