Case Title: MORRISON v HIGBEE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 83-031

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-06-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 83-31 IN THE SUPRE:ME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1983 PETER A. MORRISON, et al., Plaintiffs, E D V J I ? J P. IIIGBEE, et a1 . , Defendants. ......................................... JAMES E. ROBERTSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, -vs- LETJIS HUGHES and MILDRED HUGHES, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, In and for the County of l,ladison, The Honorable Joseph Gary, Judge presising. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Moore, Rice, 0' Connell & Refling, David C. Moon, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: filorrow, Sedivy & Olson; J. II. Morrow, Rozenan, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 31, 1983 Decided: June 30, 1983 Filed: J U M 3 0 1983 P Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Robertson brought an actiorl i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, Madison County, t o o b t a i n an i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes t o p r e v e n t them from f u r t h e r u t i l i z i n g a p o r t i o n of R o b e r t s o n ' s i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h t o convey water. The Hughes counterclaimed f o r damages, both a c t u a l and p u n i t i v e , a l l e g i n g t h a t Robertson n e g l i g e n t l y maintained t h e d i t c h , which caused e r o s i o n , and m a l i c i o u s l y r e f u s e d t o t a k e c o r r e c t i v e a c t i o n t o p r e v e n t t h e e r o s i o n . The c a s e was t o be t r i e d by j u r y , b u t a t t h e c l o s e of t h e evidence, t h e D i s t r i c t Court d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s i n f a v o r of t h e Hughes r e g a r d i n g t h e i n j u n c t i o n and Robertson r e g a r d i n g t h e counterclaim. Both p a r t i e s appeal. S i n c e approximately 1949, L e w i s Hughes and Robertson have been ranching i n Madison County. I n 1953, Robertson and h i s w i f e gave t h e Hughes o r a l p e r m i s s i o n t o use t h e d i t c h i n c o n t r o v e r s y ( t h e Robertson d i t c h ) t o i r r i g a t e t h e i r ranch. P r i o r t o t h a t time, however, t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s a l s o used t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. The l e n g t h of t i m e d u r i n g which t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s used t h e d i t c h was n o t c o n c l u s i v e l y d i s c l o s e d a t t r i a l . On October 8, 1959, t h e Robertsons s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e Hughes revoking t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n t o use t h e d i t c h . S h o r t l y t h e r e a f t e r , L e w i s Hughes asked t h e Robertsons i f he could c o n t i n u e t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. An agreement was t h e n d r a f t e d by t h e Robertsons ' a t t o r n e y , which g r a n t e d t o t h e Hughes a l i c e n s e t o use t h e d i t c h . The agreement a l s o provided t h a t t h e l i c e n s e was s u b j e c t t o ter- m i n a t i o n a t any t i m e by t h e Robertsons and t h a t t h e Hughes pay f o r one-half of t h e maintenance c o s t s of t h e d i t c h . L e w l s Hughes s i g n e d t h e agreement i n t h e Robertsons' a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e and then took t h e agreement home f o r h i s w i f e t o s i g n . L e w i s Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t c a r e - f u l l y read t h e agreement and d i d n o t understand it. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e Robertsons' a t t o r n e y t o l d him t h e agree- ment was d r a f t e d t o g i v e him a r i g h t i n t h e Robertson d i t c h f o r e v e r . Mildred Hughes t e s t i f i e d t h a t when s h e s i g n e d t h e agreement, she was r e l y i n g upon what her husband t o l d h e r t h e agreement s a i d . She a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h e d i d n o t read t h e agreement v e r y c a r e f u l l y . The agreement was i n t h e Hughes' p o s s e s s i o n f o r a t l e a s t two d a y s b e f o r e it was r e t u r n e d t o t h e a t t o r n e y ' s o f f i c e . Both Robertson and t h e Hughes continued t o u s e t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes from 1959 t o 1980. During t h a t t i m e , t h e Hughes and Robertson o r h i s lessees main- t a i n e d t h e d i t c h by a n n u a l l y removing brush which impeded t h e flow of water through t h e d i t c h . A t v a r i o u s times, R o b e r t s o n ' s lessees a l s o helped t h e Hughes m a i n t a i n t h e d i t c h by removing t h e t r e e s and b u i l d i n g up t h e d i t c h banks. During t h a t p e r i o d , however, t h e Hughes were r e q u i r e d t o move a f e n c e l o c a t e d on t h e s o u t h s i d e of t h e Robertson d i t c h because of washing and e r o s i o n which t h e Hughes a l l e g e o c c u r r e d i n t h e d i t c h . L e w i s Hughes a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t Robertson allowed a headgate on t h e d i t c h t o wash o u t , which r u i n e d e i g h t a c r e s of h i s l a n d . On cross-examination, however, Hughes admitted t h a t t h e wash-out o c c u r r e d b e f o r e Robertson had a c q u i r e d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h . On March 1 4 , 1980, R o b e r t s o n ' s a t t o r n e y s e n t a l e t t e r t o t h e Hughes revoking t h e l i c e n s e . The Hughes, however, continued t o use t h e d i t c h f o r i r r i g a t i o n purposes. Robert- son t h e n f i l e d a complaint s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n t h e Hughes from using t h e d i t c h . The Hughes brought a c o u n t e r c l a i m a l l e g i n g t h a t R o b e r t s o n ' s n e g l i g e n t maintenance of t h e d i t c h caused e r o s i o n which damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The Hughes a l s o asked f o r p u n i t i v e damages because of R o b e r t s o n ' s a l l e g e d oppres- s i v e and m a l i c i o u s r e f u s a l t o do a n y t h i n g t o p r e v e n t t h e e r o s i o n . A t t r i a l , t h e Hughes p r e s e n t e d e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t e r o s i o n had occurred i n t h e Robertson d i t c h and t h a t t h e e r o s i o n damaged t h e i r p r o p e r t y . The Hughes d i d n o t p r e s e n t testimony, however, t o prove when t h e e r o s i o n o c c u r r e d . Louie Day (Hughes' e x p e r t w i t n e s s ) t e s t i f i e d t h a t he d i d n o t know when t h e e r o s i o n o c c u r r e d , b u t t h a t it could have hap- pened f i f t y o r one hundred y e a r s ago. H e a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e r o s i o n has c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was f i r s t p u t i n . A t t h e c l o s e o f t h e e v i d e n c e , b o t h Robertson and t h e Hughes moved f o r d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t s , and t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d b o t h motions. Robertson now a p p e a l s from t h e p o r t i o n of t h e v e r d i c t wherein t h e Hughes were adjudged t o have a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n t h e Robertson d i t c h . The Hughes a l s o a p p e a l , a r g u i n g t h a t t h e i s s u e of whether Robertson n e g l i g e n t l y maintained t h e d i t c h should have been p r e s e n t e d t o t h e j u r y . B a s i c a l l y , two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d f o r our review: 1. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t f o r the Hughes by f i n d i n g t h a t the October 1 9 , 1959, agree- ment d i d n o t d i v e s t t h e Hughes of any d i t c h r i g h t s ? 11. Did t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t f o r Robertson by f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Hughes f a i l e d t o prove t h a t R o b e r t s o n ' s a c t i o n caused t h e Hughes' damages, which removed t h a t i s s u e from t h e j u r y ' s c o n s i d e r a t i o n ? I. DIRECTED VERDICT FOR THE HUGHES P u r s u a n t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t judge, t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s : "On t h e p l a i n t i f f R o b e r t s o n ' s c l a i m a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughest c o n t i n u e d use of t h e 'Robertson' c a n a l o r d i t c h , f i n d t h a t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes have a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t by u s e of unin- t e r r u p t e d , c o n t i n u o u s u s e o f t h i s d i t c h f o r a p e r i o d of t i m e i n e x c e s s of t e n y e a r s p r i o r t o October 1 9 , 1959, a d v e r s e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson and h i s prede- c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t , a n d by r e a s o n t h e r e o f t h e agreement of October 1 9 , 1959 b e i n g w i t h o u t c o n s i d e r a t i o n , d i d n o t d i v e s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes o f a n y r i g h t s i n t h e d i t c h and d i d n o t c r e a t e a mere l i c e n s e i n t h e u s e of s a i d d i t c h and by r e a s o n t h e r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson is n o t e n t i t l e d t o a judgment f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n p r o h i b i t i n g t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes from u s i n g s a i d d i t c h . " Robertson p r e s e n t s many arguments f o r h i s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by r e f u s i n g t o g r a n t t h e i n j u n c t i o n , b u t t h e argument w e f i n d most compelling is t h a t no p r e s c r i p t i v e easement e x i s t e d . I n Montana, a p a r t y c l a i m i n g t o have a c q u i r e d a n easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n must show open, n o t o r i o u s , e x c l u s i v e , a d v e r s e , c o n t i n u o u s , and u n i n t e r r u p t e d u s e o f t h e easement claimed f o r t h e f u l l s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d . Madison County v. E l f o r d ( 1 9 8 3 ) , Mont. , 661 P.2d 1266, 40 St.Rep. 457. I f t h e u s e b e g i n s as a p e r m i s s i v e u s e , it c a n n o t r i p e n i n t o a p r e s c r i p - t i v e r i g h t , no matter how long it may c o n t i n u e , u n l e s s t h e r e is a d i s t i n c t and p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n of a r i g h t h o s t i l e t o t h e owner. Drew v. Burggraf ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 1 4 1 Mont. 405, 387 P.2d I n t h i s c a s e , t h e Hughes' own a c t i o n s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e i r u s e of t h e d i t c h was p e r m i s s i v e r a t h e r t h a n h o s t i l e . For example, i n 1953, Lewis Hughes asked t h e p e r m i s s i o n of t h e Robertsons t o use t h e d i t c h t o i r r i g a t e h i s ranch. I n 1959 when t h e Robertsons revoked t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n , t h e Hughes s i g n e d a l i c e n s e agreement which s t a t e d t h a t t h e Kobertsons could revoke t h e i r p e r m i s s i o n a t any t i m e . The Hughes argue t h a t because t h e y d i d n o t read t h e agreement c a r e f u l l y and d i d n o t understand it, t h e y should n o t be h e l d a c c o u n t a b l e t o t h e terms of t h e agreement. However, "a p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t cannot avoid t h e c o n t r a c t on t h e ground t h a t he made a mistake where t h e r e h a s been no misrepre- s e n t a t i o n , no ambiguity i n t h e terms of t h e c o n t r a c t and t h e o t h e r p a r t y h a s no n o t i c e of such m i s t a k e and a c t s i n good f a i t h . ' ' S i l v a v. McGuinness ( 1 9 8 0 ) , Mont. , 615 P.2d 879, 37 St.Rep. 1401. The Hughes a l s o argue t h a t t h e y had a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n t h e d i t c h p r i o r t o s i g n i n g t h e l i c e n s e agreement because of t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s ' u s e of t h e d i t c h . The o n l y testimony regarding t h e use of t h e d i t c h by t h e Hughes' p r e d e c e s s o r s came from L e w i s Hughes who s t a t e d t h a t t h e d i t c h had been used f o r f i f t y y e a r s and t h a t t h e " o l d t i m e r s " p u t t h e i r water t o g e t h e r i n t o one d i t c h i n times of drought s o t h a t t h e water would reach t h e end of t h e d i t c h where t h e ranches were l o c a t e d . T h i s testimony d o e s n o t i n d i c a t e h o s t i l e use, b u t on t h e c o n t r a r y i n d i c a t e s f r i e n d l y c o o p e r a t i o n between neighbors. Even i f Lewis Hughes' t e s t i - mony could be c o n s t r u e d t o i n d i c a t e t h a t h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s o b t a i n e d a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement, Hughes' subsequent a c t i o n s of a s k i n g permission t o use t h e d i t c h and of s i g n i n g t h e l i c e n s e agreement a r e incompatible w i t h t h e n a t u r e of a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement. A s s t a t e d i n s e c t i o n 70-17-111(3), MCA: "A s e r v i t u d e is e x t i n g u i s h e d by t h e performance of any a c t upon e i t h e r tenement by t h e owner of t h e s e r v i t u d e o r w i t h h i s a s s e n t which is i n c o m p a t i b l e w i t h its n a t u r e o r e x e r c i s e . 'I The a c t i o n s of t h e Hughes d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e y d i d n o t o b t a i n an i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h by p r e s c r i p t i o n , b u t merely a c q u i r e d a l i c e n s e t o u s e t h e d i t c h . The term " l i c e n s e " has been d e f i n e d a s t h e p e r m i s s i o n o r a u t h o r i t y t o do a p a r t i c u l a r a c t o r s e r i e s of a c t s upon t h e l a n d of a n o t h e r w i t h o u t p o s s e s s i n g an i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n . Renfro e t a l . v. Dettwiler ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 95 Mont. 391, 26 P.2d 992. Because no p o s s e s s o r y i n t e r e s t e x i s t s i n t h e l i c e n s e e , t h e l i c e n s e may be revoked a t w i l l . "The l i c e n s e e is c o n c l u s i v e l y presumed, a s a m a t t e r of law, t o know t h a t t h e l i c e n s e is r e v o c a b l e a t t h e p l e a s u r e of t h e l i c e n s o r , and i f h e expends money i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h h i s e n t r y upon t h e l a n d of t h e l a t t e r h e does s o a t h i s p e r i l . Any o t h e r d o c t r i n e would render most l i c e n s e s i r r e v o c a b l e and make them o p e r a t e a s conveyances of i n t e r e s t s i n l a n d . " Renfro, 93 Mont. a t 398, 26 P.2d a t 994. W e r e v e r s e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s f i n d i n g t h a t a pre- s c r i p t i v e easement e x i s t e d i n t h e Hughes and o r d e r t h e D l s t r i c t Court t o i s s u e an i n j u n c t i o n p r e v e n t i n g f u r t h e r u s e by t h e Hughes of t h e Robertson d i t c h . I . DIRECTED VERDICT FOR ROBERTSON P u r s u a n t t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge, t h e j u r y found a s f o l l o w s : "On t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m of t h e d e f e n d a n t s Hughes a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson, w e f i n d t h a t t h e r e was a f a i l u r e of proof t o show t h a t any a c t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson caused damages t o t h e defen- d a n t s Hughes inasmuch a s t h e 'Robertson' d i t c h i n q u e s t i o n had been l o c a t e d and e s t a b l i s h e d a t l e a s t 20 y e a r s p r i o r t o t h e a c q u i r i n g of i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d s i n q u e s t i o n by e i t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t s , and t h a t t h e r e is no e v i d e n c e t h a t any a c t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f caused t h e e r o s i o n o r i g i n a l l y and t h a t t h e sub- s e q u e n t , g r a d u a l e r o s i o n is no d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h a t of any o t h e r i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h i n e x i s t e n c e and is n o t p r o x i m a t e l y caused by any a c t i o n o r i n a c t i o n of t h e p l a i n t i f f R o b e r t s o n , and by r e a s o n t h e r e o f , t h e d e f e n d a n t s a r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o a n y c l a i m of damages a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f Robertson." The r u l e f o r d e t e r m i n i n g whether a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t should be g r a n t e d i n n e g l i g e n c e a c t i o n s h a s been s t a t e d i n Lawlor v. County of F l a t h e a d ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 508, 582 P.2d 751, a s f o l l o w s : ". . . a s a g e n e r a l r u l e , t h e i s s u e s of n e g l i g e n c e and c o n t r i b u t o r y n e g l i g e n c e must be d e c i d e d by t h e j u r y under appro- p r i a t e i n s t r u c t i o n s . . . and t h e s e t t l e d r u l e is t h a t a c a s e should n o t be t a k e n from t h e j u r y u n l e s s it f o l l o w s a s a m a t t e r of l a w t h a t p l a i n t i f f c a n n o t recover upon any view of t h e e v i d e n c e , i n c l u d i n g t h e l e g i t i m a t e i n f e r e n c e s t o be drawn from it; e v e r y f a c t w i l l be deemed p r o v e d which t h e e v i d e n c e t e n d s t o prove. " Quoted from A u t i o v. Miller ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 92 Mont. 150, 167, 1 1 P.2d 1039, 1044. The Hughes contend t h a t t h i s r u l e should have p r e c l u d e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court from i s s u i n g a d i r e c t e d v e r d i c t because i n f e r e n c e s could have been drawn from t h e e v i d e n c e t o show t h a t Robertson was n e g l i g e n t i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e d i t c h and t h a t h i s n e g l i g e n c e caused t h e e r o s i o n . W e d i s a g r e e . I n t h i s c a s e , no evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o prove t h a t Robertson breached any d u t y which caused t h e damages com- p l a i n e d of by t h e Hughes. " [A] breach of d u t y r e l i e d upon must have been t h e proximate c a u s e of t h e i n j u r y , and t h e f a c t s p l e a d e d must d i s c l o s e t h e c a u s a l c o n n e c t i o n between t h e d e f e n d a n t ' s n e g l i g e n t a c t and t h e i n j u r y complained o f . " Fusselinan v. Yellowstone V a l l e y e t c . Co. ( 1 9 1 7 ) , 53 Mont. 254, 163 P. 473. The most which c a n b e deduced from t h e e v i d e n c e is t h a t any damages which d i d i n f a c t occur t o t h e Hughes' p r o p e r t y o c c u r r e d b e f o r e Robertson a c q u i r e d h i s i n t e r e s t i n t h e d i t c h . For example, Louie Day t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e e r o s i o n had c o n t i n u e d s i n c e t h e d i t c h was o r i g i n a l l y p u t i n . (The evidence r e v e a l e d t h a t t h e d i t c h was " p u t i n " long b e f o r e t h e Hughes and Robertson owned t h e i r ranches. ) Even L e w i s Hughes admitted t h a t Mrs. Robertson, who was Robert- s o n ' s p r e d e c e s s o r , was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r any damages caused by t h e d i t c h . C l e a r l y , such evidence is i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t an award of damages. The p r e s e n t c a s e d i f f e r s from t h e r e c e n t c a s e of Marta v. Smith ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont . , 622 P.2d 1011, 38 St.Rep. 28, wherein t h i s Court upheld a District C o u r t ' s judgment which awarded damages f o r e r o s i o n caused by t h e n e g l i g e n t a c t s of t h e d e f e n d a n t . I n Marta, t h i s Court quoted p a r t i a l l y from C a l v e r t v. Anderson ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 7 3 Mont. 551, 236 P. 847, which w e now q u o t e i n t o t o a s f o l l o w s : " I t is t h e r u l e i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t t h e owner of an i r r i g a t i n g d i t c h is n o t a n i n s u r e r t h e r e o f , and is l i a b l e o n l y f o r damages caused by h i s w i l l f u l a c t s , o r by h i s n e g l i g e n c e i n c o n s t r u c t i n g , m a i n t a i n i n g , o r u s i n g h i s d i t c h . " The f a c t s i n t h i s c a s e , u n l i k e t h o s e i n Marta, do n o t show t h a t Robertson w i l l f u l l y o r n e g l i g e n t l y c o n s t r u c t e d , m a i n t a i n e d , o r used t h e d i t c h . W e t h e r e f o r e hold t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court was c o r r e c t i n d i r e c t i n g a v e r d i c t which found t h a t t h e Hughes were n o t e n t i t l e d t o damages. Reversed i n p a r t and affirmed in p a r t . N o c o s t s t o e i t h e r party. i ' " L \I ,Y$ t LGkl, / Justice W e concur: