State v. Higgins

Montana Supreme Court

State v. Higgins

Montana Supreme Court·Decided January 23, 1975·No. 12812·Published

Opinion

No. 12812

I N WE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN

1974

THE STATE O MONTANA, ACTING BY

F

AND THROUGH T E DEPARTMENT O HIGHWAYS H F

O T E STATE O MONTANA, F H F

P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,

CHARLES C. HIGGINS and MARJORIE K. HIGGINS, husband and w i f e ,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert K e l l e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record :

For Appellants :

L e i f Erickson, S r . , argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent :

Daniel J. S u l l i v a n and James R. Beck argued, Helena, Montana

---

Submitted: November 21, 1974 Decided : JAR 2 3 1975

Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t .

C h a r l e s and t l a r j o r i e Higgins a p p e a l from a p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation 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 of L i n c o l n

County. The o r d e r d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e u s e t o which t h e Department of Highways s e e k s t o a p p l y t h e H i g g i n s ' p r o p e r t y i s a n e c e s s a r y

p u b l i c u s e a u t h o r i z e d by law, and t h a t t h e t a k i n g i s r e q u i r e d by the public i n t e r e s t .

The a c t i o n began w i t h a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by t h e Department of Highways on J u l y 26, 1972, s e e k i n g t o condemn a right-of-way

t h r o u g h p r o p e r t y owned by t h e H i g g i n s i n t h e Yaak R i v e r V a l l e y of n o r t h w e s t e r n Montana. A t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t was a res- o l u t i o n of t h e S t a t e Highway Commission which a s s e r t e d : That

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and n e c e s s i t y r e q u i r e d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s t a t e highway i n L i n c o l n County; t h a t a highway had been p l a n n e d

and l o c a t e d i n a manner most c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y ; t h a t a p o r t i o n of p r o p e r t y owned by t h e H i g g i n s was n e c e s s a r y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h a t highway; and t h a t t h e Department had been u n a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e a n a g r e e - ment f o r p u r c h a s e of t h e p r o p e r t y . The owners, C h a r l e s and M a r j o r i e H i g g i n s , f i l e d an answer d e n y i n g t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a - t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t and c l a i m i n g t h a t $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 would be a r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t compensation f o r t h e t a k i n g .

A h e a r i n g was h e l d on October 11, 1973, t o d e t e r m i n e t h e " n e c e s s i t y " o f t h e proposed condemnation. The Department i n -

t r o d u c e d t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Highway Commission and t h e n r e s t e d , r e l y i n g on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h e r e s o l u t i o n by v i r t u e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 32-3904, R.C.M. 1947.

The p r o p e r t y owners c a l l e d H i g g i n s a s t h e i r o n l y w i t n e s s .

H e r e l a t e d h i s p r e s e n t and a n t i c i p a t e d u s e s of t h e p r o p e r t y and

t h e a d v e r s e impact which t h e proposed condemnation and c o n s t r u c - t i o n would have on t h o s e u s e s . T e s t i f y i n g a s one e x p e r i e n c e d i n r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s but u n q u a l i f i e d a s an engineer, he e x p r e s s e d a b e l i e f t h a t t h e proposed highway c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d

more e c o n o m i c a l l y on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e v a l l e y , a c r o s s t h e r i v e r from h i s p r o p e r t y .

On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n h e a d m i t t e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e highway on t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e r i v e r would n e c e s s i t a t e t h e u s e of a d d i t i o n a l b r i d g e s . H e expressed a personal opinion t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s e b r i d g e s might be o f f - s e t by t h e r e d u c t i o n i n c u t t i n g and f i l l i n g a r i s i n g from t h e

e a s t s i d e ' s less rugged t e r r a i n .

Even i f t h e a l t e r n a t e r o u t e wa s

was most c o s t l y , h e f e l t t h e added e x p e n s e / w a r r a n t e d by t h e

l e s s e n e d demand f o r p r i v a t e l a n d . Most of t h e l a n d on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r i s owned by t h e f e d e r a l government, w h i l e much of t h e l a n d on t h e w e s t s i d e o f t h e v a l l e y i s p r i v a t e l y

owned. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , he p r o f e s s e d no knowledge of whether o r n o t t h e f e d e r a l government would a l l o w c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s

highway on i t s l a n d .

When t h e p r o p e r t y owners r e s t e d t h e Department reopened i t s c a s e by c a l l i n g John D i l l o n , d i s t r i c t r a n g e r f o r t h e Yaak Ranger D i s t r i c t of t h e Kootenai N a t i o n a l F o r e s t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was opposed t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of a highway o n f e d e r a l f o r e s t l a n d s i n t h e Yaak R i v e r V a l l e y . He had responded t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s i n q u i r i e s by opposing a r o u t e on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r f o r t h r e e reasons: F i r s t , he was opposed t o d e d i c a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l f o r e s t l a n d f o r a highway when one a l r e a d y e x i s t e d on t h e w e s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r ; s e c o n d , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n would

have a n a d v e r s e impact on t h e Yaak R i v e r " w a t e r i n f l u e n c e zone"; and f i n a l l y , a highway on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r would i n t e r - f e r e w i t h moose and mule d e e r m i g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s .

D i l l o n a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s o p i n i o n had been c o n c u r r e d

i n by h i s immediate s u p e r v i s o r , b u t t h a t h e d i d n o t know whether t h e Department had pursued t h e i n q u i r y t o h i g h e r l e v e l s w i t h i n t h e f e d e r a l bureaucracy. Under c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n he a l s o ad- m i t t e d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y u s e r s of t h e p r e s e n t highway were l o g g e r s , h u n t e r s , and f i s h e r m e n and t h a t t h e proposed highway would be used s i m i l a r l y .

Following t h e h e a r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemn a t i o n was i s s u e d and t h i s a p p e a l w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y p e r f e c t e d .

A p p e l l a n t s h e r e a r g u e t h a t a highway r o u t i n g o v e r p u b l i c l a n d s h o u l d be p r e f e r r e d t o a l o c a t i o n on p r i v a t e l a n d . They c o n t e n d t h a t " n e c e s s i t y " h a s n o t been d e m o n s t r a t e d u n t i l it i s shown t h a t t h e f e d e r a l l a n d i s u n a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s highway. I t i s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of f o r e s t l a n d s h e r e c o u l d n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u t a showing t h a t t h e r e q u e s t s were pursued t o t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e s t Service.

The Department, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether o r n o t t h e Department a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y o r abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r o u t i n g t h e proposed highway on t h e w e s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r . The D e p a r t - ment a s s e r t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o make such a showing by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g proof and t h e r e f o r e t h e y c a n n o t p r e v a i l upon a p p e a l .

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