Case Title: CITY OF GREAT FALLS v PRICE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 89-041

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1989-07-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 89-041 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1989 CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MONTANA, Plaintiff & Respondent -vs- ALICE PRICE, Defendant & Appellant ALICE PRICE, ~ross/Plaintiff & Appellant -VS- CITY OF GREAT FALLS, MT, a municipal corporation; RICHARD D. STEVENS; JOHN DOE AUSTIN; WILLIAM B. REID; AUSTIN-REID DEMOLITION, a business association, Cross/Defendants & Respondent APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: La Rue Smith, Great Falls, MT For Respondent : J. David Slovak, City Attorney, Great Falls, MT Mark J. Higgins, Ugrin, Alexander, Zadick and Slovak; Great Falls, MT Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 1989 D,ecided: July 6, 1989 Filed: M r . J u s t i c e Fred J. Weber delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Alice P r i c e appeals from an order o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e Eighth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Cascade County, dismissing with prejudice h e r cause of a c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e City of Great F a l l s and Richard D. Stevens, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s "defendants." W e affirm. M s . P r i c e r a i s e s seven i s s u e s f o r our review, none of which d i r e c t l y address t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d i s m i s s a l of t h i s a c t i o n . W e t h e r e f o r e r e s t a t e t h e i s s u e on appeal a s whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court properly granted defen- d a n t s ' motion t o dismiss pursuant t o Rule 1 2 (b) , M.R.Civ.P. on t h e b a s i s t h a t defendants were immune from s u i t ? Since we conclude t h a t d i s m i s s a l was proper, we w i l l not d i s c u s s t h e remaining i s s u e s r a i s e d by M s . Price. O n October 30, 1987, Alice P r i c e was c i t e d f o r v i o l a t i o n of Great F a l l s C i t y Ordinance 8.48.080 f o r knowingly and purposely allowing waste paper, c l o t h i n g , boxes, discarded f u r n i t u r e , appliances, and other rubbish t o accumulate on her property. The n o t i c e t o appear and complaint was signed by Richard D. Stevens, a Zoning Technician f o r t h e City of Great F a l l s , who i s a named defendant i n t h i s a c t i o n . A t a non-jury t r i a l i n City Court, M s . P r i c e was found g u i l t y of c r e a t i n g a nuisance on her property a t 620 6th Avenue South. The c o u r t ordered M s . P r i c e t o completely a b a t e t h e nuisance within seven days, and f u r t h e r ordered t h a t i f t h e nuisance was n o t completely abated by March 2 , 1988, t h e C i t y of Great F a l l s s h a l l do s o and charge t h e c o s t of t h e procedure t o M s . Price. When she d i d not c l e a n up her property by t h e ordered d a t e , Richard Stevens, pursuant t o t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r , contracted o u t t h e clean-up p r o j e c t and b i l l e d M s . P r i c e f o r t h e c o s t , which was $495. 5 ' P - . a . I * e a M s . P r i c e appealed h e r c o n v i c t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court, and i n subsequent p l e a d i n g s , sought compensatory damages f o r p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y which was a l l e g e d l y wrongfully removed, and f o r mental d i s t r e s s and s u f f e r i n g , a s w e l l a s p u n i t i v e damag- es and a t t o r n e y f e e s . These damages w e r e a s s e r t e d a g a i n s t defendants Richard Stevens and t h e C i t y o f Great F a l l s , a s w e l l a s t h e two i n d i v i d u a l s h i r e d t o complete t h e clean-up of M s . P r i c e ' s property. The C i t y o f Great F a l l s and Richard Stevens f i l e d a motion t o dismiss M s . p r i c e ' s claims f o r r e l i e f pursuant t o Rule 1 2 , M. R.Civ.P., based on procedural e r r o r s , i n c l u d i n g t h e t r a n s f o r m a t i o n o f a c r i m i n a l m a t t e r t o a c i v i l a c t i o n under a r u l e providing f o r a p p e a l s o f c i v i l c a s e s t o d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Defendants a l s o argued t h a t they w e r e immune from s u i t . The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d defendants' motion, concluding t h a t both t h e C i t y o f Great F a l l s and Richard Stevens were immune from s u i t f o r damages under t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case. I t i s from t h i s o r d e r t h a t M s . P r i c e appeals. The a c t i o n s complained o f i n t h i s c a s e r e l a t e t o Richard Stevens' a c t i v i t i e s i n c a r r y i n g o u t , on behalf of t h e C i t y o f Great F a l l s , t h e sentence l e g a l l y imposed by t h e C i t y Court Judge. The D i s t r i c t Court determined t h a t i n s o doing, M r . Stevens was immune from s u i t under S 2-9-112, MCA, a s i n t e r - p r e t e d i n Knutson v. S t a t e (1984), 2 1 1 Mont. 126, 683 P.2d 488. S e c t i o n 2-9-112, MCA, provides: Immunity from s u i t f o r j u d i c i a l a c t s and omissions. (1) The s t a t e and o t h e r governmental u n i t s a r e immune from s u i t f o r a c t s o r omissions of t h e j u d i c i a r y . I n regard t o t h a t s e c t i o n t h i s Court first s t a t e d : . . . The immunity s t a t u t e a p p l i e s t o j u d i c i a l a c t s with no s t a t e d l i m i t a t i o n . I t a p p l i e s t o p r o t e c t t h e s t a t e and governmental agencies whenever t h e j u d i c i a l power of t h e s t a t e i s put t o use i n a j u d i c i a l action. . . . I n t h a t case M s . Knutson argued t h a t the immunity s t a t - u t e d i d not apply t o t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s which she contended had miscomputed t h e good time allowance. The Court concluded t h a t t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s was protected under t h e immunity s e c t i o n , s t a t i n g : . . . Sentences a r e pronounced by courts, not by t h e Department of I n s t i t u t i o n s . Knutson's sentenc- ing was t h e r e s u l t of a j u d i c i a l a c t . Further, - t h e immunity s t a t u t e p r o t e c t s any governmental agency involved - i n - t h e j u d i c i a l - a c t - of sentencing. (Emphasis supplied. ) The i s s u e i n t h e present case is whether o r not t h e City a s well a s M r . Stevens a r e protected by t h e immunity s t a t u t e . Under t h e a n a l y s i s of Knutson, we conclude t h a t they a r e . I n carrying o u t t h e express provisions of t h e sentence, M r . Stevens was d i r e c t l y involved i n an a c t of t h e judiciary and is therefore afforded immunity. Since he was a c t i n g a s an agent of h i s employer, t h e immunity s t a t u t e a l s o p r o t e c t s t h e City of Great F a l l s . W e hold t h a t S 2-9-112, MCA, provided immunity f o r both t h e defendants City of Great F a l l s and i t s agent, Richard Stevens. W e affirm t h e order of the D i s t r i c t Court dismissing t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s case with prejudice. W e Concur: