Case Title: RYAN v BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1980-12-17T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 80-169 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 PAUL RYAN, Defendant and Appellant, THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR GALLATIN COUNTY AND GALLATIN COUNTY REFUSE DISTRICT NO. 1 et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable W. W . Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Bolinger, Higgins and Andes, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Michael J. Lilly, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted on briefs: September 25, 1980 Decided: UeC 1 7 3980 - , I r # * ? nEc ! ! ~ i J Filed: Q . k ! . @ 9 e M * , Clerk Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant a p p e a l s from a judgment i n favor of t h e p l a i n t i f f g r a n t e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of G a l l a t i n , t h e Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y p r e s i d i n g . A t t h e r e q u e s t of t h e County Commissioners of G a l l a t i n County, t h e Board of D i r e c t o r s of t h e G a l l a t i n County Refuse D i s t r i c t Number 1 e n t e r e d i n t o a w r i t t e n c o n t r a c t w i t h Paul Ryan on J u l y 11, 1978. The purpose of t h e c o n t r a c t was t o s e c u r e d e f e n d a n t Ryan's s e r v i c e s and equipment f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l n e a r Logan, Montana. Ryan was t o commence o p e r a t i o n on December 1, 1978, w i t h t h e c o n t r z c t e x p i r i n g a t t h e end of f i v e y e a r s . Included i n t h e c o n t r a c t was t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n : "6. Compliance w i t h Laws: The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l o p e r a t e t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e i n compliance with a l l a p p l i c a b l e laws, o r d i n a n c e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , from whatever governmental agency may have j u r i s d i c - t i o n over t h e o p e r a t i o n . (Copies of s a i d laws and r e g u l a t i o n s and recommended s t a n d a r d s a r e a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t " B " . ) Any changes i n s a i d laws and r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t upon r e c e i p t of a copy t h e r e o f . " A s i n d i c a t e d , t h e above c l a u s e p r o v i d e s t h a t c o p i e s of a p p l i c a b l e laws, r e g u l a t i o n s and recommended s t a n d a r d s would be a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t "B." However, no such e x h i b i t was a t t a c h e d t o t h e c o n t r a c t . A t t h e time t h e c o n t r a c t was l e t , s e c t i o n 75-10-221, MCA, was i n e f f e c t and provided i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "(1) Except a s provided i n 75-10-214, no person may . . . o p e r a t e a s o l i d waste management system . . . w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e from t h e department. " ( 2 ) The department s h a l l p r o v i d e a p p l i c a t i o n forms f o r a l i c e n s e a s provided i n t h i s p a r t . " ( 3 ) The a p p l i c a t i o n s h a l l c o n t a i n t h e name and b u s i n e s s a d d r e s s of t h e a p p l i c a n t , l o c a t i o n of t h e proposed s o l i d waste management system, a plan of operation and maintenance, and such other information as the department may by rule require." Pursuant to section 75-10-221, MCA, Erick Armstrong, a member of the Gallatin County Health Off ice, requested that Ryan obtain a license from the Department of Health and Environmental Sciences for the operation of the sanitary landfill. Armstrong made the request on the date the contract was awarded and provided Ryan with an application, asking that it be returned immediately. As of April 10, 1979, Ryan had yet to obtain the license as requested. Ryan's failure in this regard was based on his belief that it was the Refuse Board's obligation, not his, to obtain the required license. In response to Ryan's failure to obtain the license, Deputy Gallatin County Attorney, Michael J. Lilly, wrote Ryan a letter, dated April 10, 1979, again requesting him to complete the license application for the Logan Sanitary Landfill immediately. The letter also warned Ryan that if he did not complete the application by April 20, 1979, he would be held in breach of contract pursuant to "paragraph 6" of the contract with the Refuse Board. As a result of this letter, Ryan filled out the application and gave it to Lilly. Lilly then forwarded the application to the State Department of Health. The application, marked "incomplete," was returned to Ryan in May 1979. John Geech of the State Department of Health indicated at this time that certain additional information was necessary to complete the application. In addition, Vic Anderson, also from the State Department of Health, met with Ryan at the landfill site in September, 1979, and gave Ryan t h e i n f o r m a t i o n needed t o be submitted t o complete t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . Anderson s e n t a followup l e t t e r on September 2 4 , 1979, confirming t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s he had given Ryan a t t h e site. Ryan r e c e i v e d t h i s l e t t e r b u t c l a i m s t o have misplaced it b e f o r e r e a d i n g it. A s of December 1 3 , 1979, t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l was s t i l l n o t p r o p e r l y l i c e n s e d . Consequently, t h e S t a t e Department of Health began r e f u s i n g t o approve s u b d i v i s i o n s s e r v i c e d by t h e G a l l a t i n County Refuse Board D i s t r i c t Number 1 f o r s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l . The ban was t o remain i n e f f e c t u n t i l a complete l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n was submitted. S h o r t l y a f t e r t h e ban was i n i t i a t e d , Ryan was n o t i f i e d o r a l l y by L i l l y t h a t t h e C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s w e r e t e r m i n a t i n g h i s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e Refuse Board f o r t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e l a n d f i l l because he d i d n o t hold a v a l i d l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e a s o l i d waste management system. A w r i t t e n n o t i c e was a l s o mailed t o Ryan i n d i c a t i n g t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was t e r m i n a t e d and t h a t t h e commissioners were t o hold him i n breach. A f t e r r e c e i v i n g n o t i c e t h a t h i s c o n t r a c t was t o be t e r m i n a t e d , Ryan f u r n i s h e d t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n r e q u e s t e d by t h e S t a t e Department of Health. Upon r e c e i v i n g t h e a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n , t h e D e p a r t m e n t deemed t h e l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n complete on December 17, 1979. An a c t u a l l i c e n s e , however, was n o t i s s u e d a t t h i s time, nor was one i s s u e d p r i o r t o t h e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r . Two days l a t e r , on December 1 9 , 1979, L i l l y advised t h e Refuse Board t h a t t h e County Commissioners were holding Ryan i n breach of h i s l a n d f i l l c o n t r a c t . The Refuse Board, however, voted 7 t o 2 , w i t h one a b s t e n t i o n , t o r e t a i n Ryan f o r o p e r a t i o n of t h e l a n d f i l l s i t e . The Board of County Commissioners t h e r e a f t e r informed t h e Refuse Board t h a t it was withdrawing its a p p r o v a l of R y a n ' s c o n t r a c t w i t h t h e R e f u s e B o a r d . The C o u n t y Commissioners then had L i l l y d r a f t a l e t t e r d i s c h a r g i n g Ryan from h i s c o n t r a c t t o be s i g n e d by Bob Brownell, Chairman of t h e Refuse Board. A f t e r t h e l e t t e r was signed by Brownell, it was p e r s o n a l l y served on Ryan by L i l l y , on December 20, 1979. On December 21, 1979, t h e Board of County Commissioners and t h e Refuse Board f i l e d a complaint s e e k i n g d e c l a r a t o r y and i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f . I n a d d i t i o n , p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a motion f o r a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r , which was g r a n t e d on t h e same day, r e s t r a i n i n g Ryan's o p e r a t i o n of t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l . A h e a r i n g was held on December 27, 1979. On J a n u a r y 1 5 , 1980, t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of law, f i n d i n g t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o a permanent i n j u n c t i o n and adjudging t h a t t h e c o n t r a c t was r e s c i n d e d p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 28-2-1714, MCA. Judgment was e n t e r e d on J a n u a r y 1 6 , 1980. Ryan f i l e d a motion t o a l t e r o r amend t h e judgment on January 22, 1980. T h i s motion was d e n i e d , and d e f e n d a n t Ryan now a p p e a l s . Defendant r a i s e s v a r i o u s i s s u e s on a p p e a l , b u t t h i s Court need o n l y f o c u s i t s e f f o r t s on t h e following: 1. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Refuse Board's c o n t r a c t with Ryan r e q u i r e d him t o o b t a i n a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l ? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e Board of County Commissioners h a s t h e power t o withdraw its approval of t h e c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e Refuse Board and Ryan and t h e n d i r e c t t h e Refuse Board t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n t r a c t ? 3 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n f i n d i n g t h a t t h e County Commissioners and t h e Refuse Board a r e e n t i t l e d t o r e s c i n d t h e i r c o n t r a c t w i t h Ryan? I n r e g a r d s t o t h e f i r s t i s s u e , d e f e n d a n t a r g u e s t h a t s t a t e law i n d i c a t e s t h a t it is t h e Refuse Board, and n o t h e , who is o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e Logan S a n i t a r y L a n d f i l l . I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e d e f e n d a n t c l a i m s t h a t even i f s t a t e law does n o t s o o b l i g a t e t h e Refuse Board, h i s c o n t r a c t does n o t impose any requirement t h a t he p r o c u r e t h e l i c e n s e . A s s t a t e d e a r l i e r , s e c t i o n 75-10-221, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p a r t : " ( 1 ) Except a s provided i n 75-10-214, no person may . . . o p e r a t e a s o l i d waste management system . . . w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e from t h e department." S e c t i o n 75-10-203(6), MCA, d e f i n e s t h e term "person": " ( 6 ) ' P e r s o n ' means any i n d i v i d u a l , f i r m , p a r t n e r s h i p , company, a s s o c i a t i o n , c o r p o r a t i o n , c i t y , town, l o c a l government e n t i t y , o r any o t h e r governmental or p r i v a t e e n t i t y , whether organized f o r p r o f i t s o r not." When t h e s e two s e c t i o n s a r e read t o g e t h e r , it is a p p a r e n t t h a t t h e County Commissioners, t h e Refuse Board, - o r t h e d e f e n d a n t could be proper p a r t i e s on an a p p l i c a t i o n t o o b t a i n t h e r e q u i s i t e l a n d f i l l l i c e n s e . I t may w e l l be t h a t t h e Department of Health has i n t h e p a s t i s s u e d t h e s e l i c e n s e s p r i m a r i l y t o m u n i c i p a l i t i e s , r e f u s e d i s p o s a l d i s t r i c t s and county commissioners, b u t t h e r e is n o t h i n g i n t h e s t a t u t e t o i n d i c a t e t h a t a n i n d i v i d u a l , s u c h a s d e f e n d a n t , is exempt from an o b l i g a t i o n t o seek t h e r e q u i r e d l i c e n s e . Defendant contends i n h i s r e p l y b r i e f t h a t s i n c e p u b l i c p o l i c y d i c t a t e s it is t h e primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of l o c a l government t o p r o v i d e s o l i d waste management, t h e d u t y t o o b t a i n an o p e r a t o r ' s l i c e n s e is nondelegable; t h u s , it is p l a i n t i f f s who a r e s o l e l y o b l i g a t e d t o o b t a i n t h e l i c e n s e . W e a g r e e w i t h d e f e n d a n t t h a t it is t h e d u t y of l o c a l government t o p l a n , d e v e l o p , and implement a s o l i d waste management system. See s e c t i o n 75-10-112(1), MCA. However, we a r e unable t o f i n d t h a t t h i s d u t y should be extended t o r e q u i r e a l l l o c a l g o v e r n m e n t s t o o b t a i n t h e r e q u i s i t e l i c e n s e f o r o p e r a t i o n of a d i s p o s a l s i t e when t h e o p e r a t i o n s by c o n t r a c t a r e t o be performed by a n o t h e r i n d i v i d u a l . I f t h e l e g i s l a t u r e had wanted t o l i m i t l i c e n s e a p p l i c a t i o n t o l o c a l governmental b o d i e s , it could have e a s i l y done so. The l e g i s l a t u r e , however, chose t o merely p r o v i d e t h a t no "person" may o p e r a t e a s o l i d waste management system w i t h o u t a l i c e n s e , and t h e n d e f i n e d "person" s o a s t o i n c l u d e any i n d i v i d u a l who o p e r a t e s t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e . With t h i s being t h e c a s e , w e cannot f i n d t h a t it is s o l e l y p l a i n t i f f s ' r e s p o n s i b i l i t y t o o b t a i n an o p e r a t o r ' s l i c e n s e . Having concluded t h a t d e f e n d a n t can be a proper p a r t y on an a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e a s o l i d waste management system, it now becomes n e c e s s a r y t o examine t h e p a r t i e s ' c o n t r a c t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r it r e q u i r e d p l a i n t i f f s or d e f e n d a n t t o o b t a i n t h e r e q u i s i t e l i c e n s e . Paragraph 6 of t h e c o n t r a c t between t h e Refuse Board and d e f e n d a n t p r o v i d e s a s f o l l o w s : "Compliance -- w i t h Laws: The c o n t r a c t o r s h a l l o p e r a t e t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e i n compliance with a l l - a p p l i c a b l e laws, o r d i n a n c e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , from whatever governmental agency may have j ur i s d i c - t i o n over t h e o p e r a t i o n . (Copies of s a i d laws and r e g u l a t i o n s and recommended s t a n d a r d s a r e a t t a c h e d a s E x h i b i t " B " . ) Any changes i n s a i d laws and r e g u l a t i o n s s h a l l be a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e c o n t r a c t upon r e c e i p t of a copy t h e r e o f ." (Emphasis added. ) P l a i n t i f f s contend t h i s p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r e s d e f e n d a n t t o o b t a i n t h e l i c e n s e . Defendant a r g u e s t o t h e c o n t r a r y . S e c t i o n 28-3-301, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "A c o n t r a c t must be so i n t e r p r e t e d a s t o g i v e e f f e c t t o t h e mutual i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s a s it e x i s t e d t h e time of c o n t r a c t i n g , s o f a r a s t h e same is a s c e r t a i n a b l e and l a w f u l . " S e c t i o n 28-3-303, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "When a c o n t r a c t is reduced t o w r i t i n g , t h e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s is t o be a s c e r t a i n e d from t h e w r i t i n g a l o n e i f p o s s i b l e , s u b j e c t , however, t o t h e o t h e r p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s c h a p t e r .'I H e r e , t h e l a n g u a g e i s c l e a r and unambiguous a n d , t h e r e f o r e , needs no c o n s t r u c t i o n . Thus, it i s t h e d u t y of &)au l z t h e c o u r t t o e n f o r c e it a s made by t h e p a r t i e s . See 42wJ-a v. Peake ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 583 P.2d 425, 35 St.Rep. 1295; Danielson v. Danielson ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 55, 560 P.2d 893. The c o n t r a c t , a s made by t h e p a r t i e s , s t a t e s t h a t d e f e n d a n t , i n o p e r a t i n g t h e s a n i t a r y l a n d f i l l , is t o comply w i t h - a l l a p p l i c a b l e laws and r e g u l a t i o n s governing i t s o p e r a t i o n . The l i c e n s e requirement, a s imposed by s e c t i o n 75-10-221, MCA, is c l e a r l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e o p e r a t i o n of t h e d i s p o s a l s i t e a t i s s u e . Consequently, d e f e n d a n t was r e q u i r e d by t h e t e r m s o f t h e c o n t r a c t t o o b t a i n t h e o p e r a t o r ' s l i c e n s e . The second i s s u e on a p p e a l is whether t h e Board of County Commissioners have t h e power t o withdraw its a p p r o v a l of t h e c o n t r a c t e n t e r e d i n t o by t h e p a r t i e s and t h e r e b y d i r e c t t h e Refuse Board t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n t r a c t . The County Commissioners have been given s u p e r v i s o r y a u t h o r i t y over its Refuse Board by s e c t i o n 7-13-215, MCA, which p r o v i d e s : "The board of a r e f u s e d i s p o s a l d i s t r i c t e s t a b - l i s h e d and organized under t h i s p a r t has t h e f o l l o w i n g powers and d u t i e s , w i t h t h e approval of t h e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s o f t h e c o u n t i e s - - - - involved: " ( 1 ) t o develop and a d m i n i s t e r a program f o r t h e c o l l e c t i o n o r d i s p o s a l of r e f u s e i n t h e d i s t r i c t ; " ( 2 ) t o employ p e r s o n n e l ; " (Emphasis added.) D e f e n d a n t a c k n o w l e d g e s t h a t t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s h a v e c o n t r o l over t h e approval of a c t i o n s taken by t h e r e f u s e b o a r d b u t a r g u e s t h e y c a n n o t u n i l a t e r a l & t e r m i n a t e a c o n t r a c t which t h e y p r e v i o u s l y approved. I n s u p p o r t of t h i s p o s i t i o n d e f e n d a n t c i t e s Board of Commissioners of Routt County v. Morning ( 1 9 2 2 ) , 72 Colo. 200, 210 P. 326. I n Board of Commissioners of R o u t t County a c o u n t r y judge s e t t h e s a l a r y of h i s c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t , which s a l a r y was approved by t h e board of county commissioners. A t t h e end of one year t h e Commissioners, by r e s o l u t i o n , reduced t h e s a l a r y w i t h o u t c o n s u l t i n g t h e judge. The a p p l i c a b l e s t a t u t e read : " ' A l l county judges may a p p o i n t such c l e r i c a l a s s i s t a n t s and r e p o r t e r s a s s h a l l be n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e t r a n s a c t i o n of t h e b u s i n e s s of t h e i r c o u r t s , a t such compensation a s s h a l l be f i x e d by s a i d judges w i t h t h e approval of t h e board of county commissioners.'" The Colorado Supreme Court h e l d : "When t h e s a l a r y h a s been f i x e d by t h e judge and approved by t h e board, it is t h e e s t a b l i s h e d s a l a r y u n t i l t h e two p a r t i e s which e s t a b l i s h e d it a g r e e t o change i t . " 210 P. a t 326. T h i s c a s e has been g i v e n accord i n o t h e r c a s e s i n Colorado, b u t t h e holding h a s been l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o a c t i o n s i n v o l v i n g t h e u n i l a t e r a l r e d u c t i o n of s a l a r i e s p r e v i o u s l y approved by a board of county commissioners. See Kanaly v. Wadlow ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 31 Colo.App. 193, 502 P.2d 83; Schroeder v. Board of County Commissioners ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 152 Colo. 313, 381 P.2d 820. Montana has y e t t o d e a l w i t h t h e i s s u e of whether a board of county commissioners h a s an implied power t o withdraw approval of an a c t i o n t a k e n by its r e f u s e board. I n d e t e r m i n i n g t h e e x t e n t of any such power, we look t o 1972 Mont. Const., A r t . X I , § 4 , which p r o v i d e s : " ( 1 ) A l o c a l government u n i t w i t h o u t s e l f - g o v e r n m e n t p o w e r s h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l powers: " ( b ) A county h a s l e g i s l a t i v e , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e and o t h e r powers provided o r implied by law. " ( 2 ) The powers of i n c o r p o r a t e d c i t i e s and towns and c o u n t i e s s h a l l be l i b e r a l l y c o n s t r u e d . " I t is h e l d t h a t when a board of county commissioners is g i v e n an e x p r e s s power of a p p r o v a l , such power is t o be complimented by t h e implied power t o withhold approval upon a showing of adequate cause. See McCarten v. Sanderson e t . a l . ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 111 Mont. 407, 109 P.2d 1108. A l o g i c a l e x t e n s i o n of an implied power t o withhold approval is an implied power t o withdraw approval. I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e Refuse Board e n t e r e d i n t o a binding c o n t r a c t w i t h d e f e n d a n t which was approved by t h e County Commissioners. A p r o v i s i o n of t h a t c o n t r a c t p r o v i d e s t h a t defendant s a t i s f y s t a t e l i c e n s i n g requirements. The Refuse Board, however, f a i l e d t o e n f o r c e t h i s p r o v i s i o n and allowed t h e l a n d f i l l t o be o p e r a t e d i n v i o l a t i o n of law. A s a r e s u l t of t h e B o a r d ' s f a i l u r e , Vic Anderson of t h e Department of H e a l t h , S o l i d Waste Management Bureau, began r e f u s i n g t o l i f t s a n i t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s on s u b d i v i s i o n s i n t h e a r e a , t h e r e b y exposing t h e County Commissioners t o p o s s i b l e l i a b i l i t y . With t h i s being t h e c a s e , withdrawal of approval of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t r a c t is an obvious n e c e s s i t y , supported by adequate c a u s e , and should be deemed proper under t h e circumstances. W e acknowledge t h e Colorado c a s e c i t e d by d e f e n d a n t b u t f i n d t h a t t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s i n v o l v e d h e r e s h o u l d b e d i s t i n g u i s h e d . I n t h i s i n s t a n c e we a r e d e a l i n g w i t h a changing s e t of c i r c u m s t a n c e s , a r i s i n g a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l a p p r o v a l , t h a t h a s v i r t u a l l y e l i m i n a t e d t h e p r o p r i e t y of t h e approval. T h e r e f o r e , t h e Board of County omm missioners s h o u l d be e x t e n d e d t h e i m p l i e d power t o w i t h d r a w i t s approval of d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t r a c t and d i r e c t t h e Refuse Board t o t e r m i n a t e t h e c o n t r a c t . The t h i r d i s s u e r a i s e d i s w h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f s a r e e n t i t l e d t o r e s c i n d t h e c o n t r a c t w i t h defendant. S e c t i o n 28-2-1711, MCA, p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "A p a r t y t o a c o n t r a c t may r e s c i n d t h e same i n t h e f o l l o w i n g c a s e s only: " ( 2 ) i f , t o t h e f a u l t of t h e p a r t y a s t o whom he r e s c i n d s , t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r h i s o b l i g a t i o n f a i l s i n whole or i n p a r t ; " A c l a i m f o r r e s c i s s i o n must a l s o e s t a b l i s h damages i f t h e a c t i o n is b a s e d on p a r t i a l o r t o t a l f a i l u r e o f c o n s i d e r a t i o n . See B e i e r l e v. Taylor ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 164 Mont. 436, 524 P.2d 783. Damages i n such a s i t u a t i o n can be shown by p e c u n i a r y l o s s o r t h e a l t e r a t i o n of o n e ' s p o s i t i o n t o h i s p r e j u d i c e . See v . w ( 1 9 3 1 ) , 90 Mont. 489, 5-043- m a madaon P.2d 475. Here, d e f e n d a n t , due t o h i s own f a u l t and d i s r e g a r d , f a i l e d t o comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y requirement of o b t a i n i n g a l i c e n s e t o o p e r a t e t h e l a n d f i l l i n accordance w i t h s e c t i o n 75-10-221, MCA, and paragraph 6 of t h e p a r t i e s ' c o n t r a c t . A s a r e s u l t of t h i s f a i l u r e , t h e Department of H e a l t h , through t h e S o l i d Waste Management Bureau, began r e f u s i n g t o l i f t s a n i t a r y r e s t r i c t i o n s on proposed s u b d i v i s i o n s i n t h e a r e a . T h i s r e f u s a l , i n e f f e c t , prevented t h e a p p r o v a l of t h o s e s u b d i v i s i o n s f o r s o l i d waste d i s p o s a l and t h e r e b y exposed p l a i n t i f f s t o p o t e n t i a l l i a b i l i t y . The l i a b i l i t y i n t h i s i n s t a n c e would a r i s e from o t h e r p a r t i e s s e e k i n g mandamus t o compel performance of p l a i n t i f f s ' s t a t u t o r y d u t y t o " e n f o r c e Department of Health and Environmental S c i e n c e s o r Local Board of H e a l t h r u l e s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e s t o r a g e , c o l l e c t i o n and d i s p o s a l of r e f u s e . " See s e c t i o n 7-13-215, MCA . I t is a p p a r e n t from a review of t h e m a t t e r t h a t when t h e County Commissioners chose t o t e r m i n a t e d e f e n d a n t ' s c o n t r a c t , t h e r e was a f a i l u r e of c o n s i d e r a t i o n through t h e f a u l t o f d e f e n d a n t , r e s u l t i n g i n a n a l t e r a t i o n o f p l a i n t i f f s ' p o s i t i o n t o t h e i r p r e j u d i c e , Consequently, t h e D i s t r i c t Court was proper i n r e s c i n d i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . Defendant contends t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o h e a r i n g p r i o r t o t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of h i s c o n t r a c t . Defendant a l s o contends t h a t l a c h e s b a r s r e s c i s s i o n by p l a i n t i f f s . I n r e j e c t i n g t h e s e arguments, we need o n l y n o t e t h a t upon reviewing t h e submitted t r a n s c r i p t and D i s t r i c t Court f i l e , w e f i n d t h a t d e f e n d a n t improperly r a i s e s t h e s e i s s u e s f o r t h e f i r s t time on a p p e a l . Thus, t h e y w i l l n o t be c o n s i d e r e d a s a b a s i s f o r r e v e r s a l . See Northern P l a i n s v . Board of N a t u r a l Resources ( 1 9 7 9 ) , Mont. , 594 P.2d 2 9 7 , Defendant h a s l i s t e d numerous o t h e r i s s u e s b u t h a s f a i l e d t o d i s c u s s t h e i r a p p l i c a t i o n , p r e s e n t h i s c o n t e n t i o n s , o r s u p p o r t any c o n c l u s i o n s w i t h a p p l i c a b l e a u t h o r i t y . Thus, t h e a l l e g e d s p e c i f i c a t i o n s of e r r o r a r e deemed t o be waived w i t h o u t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n . See L a Chute v. B r i n s k i ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 133 Mont. 230, 321 P.2d 1080. 1 The d e c i s i o n o f t h e W e concur: @ , , a , J.y,& Chief J u s t i c e