Case Title: SIMMONS v CITY OF GLENDIVE

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1977-12-12T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 13623 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE STATE OF M O N T A N A 1977 VIOLET SIMMONS, P l a i n t i f f and Appellant, -vs- CITY O F GLENDIVE, MONTANA, e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable M. James S o r t e , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Calton and Stephens, B i l l i n g s , Montana Robert L. Stephens argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: Richard A. :SZmonton argued, Glendive, Montana J e r r y D. Cook, Glendive, Montana -- Submitted: September 21, 1977 'Tf' *! 2 q v F i l e d : U L L , 1 3 M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f Violet Simmons appeals from a judgment entered in the D i s t r i c t Court, Dawson County, i n favor of defendants the City of Glendive, Montana, and several of i t s o f f i c i a l s . P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s action i n 1971, seeking damages f o r alleged wrongful and i l l e g a l termination of water services t o property she owned i n Glendive. A t t h a t time the City of Glendive operated a c i t y water system and supplied and d i s t r i b u t e d water services t o residents within the c i t y . On April 12, 1976, following t r i a l before the court without a jury, the D i s t r i c t Court entered findings of f a c t and conclusions of law i n favor of defendants, hereinafter referred t o a s the City. P l a i n t i f f moved t o s e t aside the findings and conclusions o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , for a new t r i a l . These motions were denied. Judgment was entered against p l a i n t i f f . This appeal followed. I n 1958, p l a i n t i f f began building a structure a t the r e a r of a l o t she owned i n Glendive. On the front portion of t h i s l o t was a four-plex apartment building owned by p l a i n t i f f comprising Nos. 314, 314 1 1 2 , 316 and 316 112 West Brennan Street. The s t r u c t u r e a t the r e a r of t h i s l o t o r i g i n a l l y was t o be a garage, but a t some point during i t s construction p l a i n t i f f decided t o make it a residence. Water and sewer l i n e s were placed between the City's main l i n e and t h i s structure j u s t a f t e r construction started..The l i n e s were hooked up and the water service became operative some years l a t e r when the s t r u c t u r e was f i r s t used a s a home. P l a i n t i f f thought the house was receiving water from the metered l i n e running i n t o the four-plex- when, i n f a c t , it was receiving unmetered water d i r e c t l y from the City's main l i n e . In 1969 the City discovered the small house was receiving water not paid for, because it was not metered. The mayor then instructed the c i t y meter man t o inform plaintiff she was violating a c i t y ordinance by receiving unmetered water, and t o make arrangements for the installation of a water meter a t the house. While there i s a dispute i n the testimony a s t o what occurred when the meter man attempted t o i n s t a l l the meter, it i s clear p l a i n t i f f refused installation when it was offered. Water service to the small house was cut off on the mayor's order when he learned plaintiff had refused t o allow installation of the water meter. The City then prepared a b i l l for the water plaintiff had received a t the house. It determined water service had been supplied, but not paid for, from September 30, 1959 t o M a y 26, 1969. Plaintiff refused to pay t h i s b i l l claiming she received water a t the small house for only 7 years, rather than the nearly 10 years for which she was billed. Plaintiff remained i n the house a f t e r the termination of its water service. She t e s t i f i e d that for a year and a half she hand carried water t o the small house from the four-plex. Ultimately, p l a i n t i f f attached a hose to an outside spigot of the four-plex, and supplied water t o the small house by means of t h i s hose. She used the hose to provide water t o her house a t various times for several months, beginning i n the summer 1970. I n October 1970, the City discovered plaintiff was supplying water t o her house through the hose. O n October 16, the City water clerk sent p l a i n t i f f a notice by certified mail that the use of the hose to supply water t o her house was a violation of City ordinances and Public Service Commission regulations and water service t o the four-plex would be terminated i f the use of the hose was not discontinued by October 26, 1970. P l a i n t i f f acknow- ledged receipt of t h i s notice. The City l a t e r learned p l a i n t i f f was continuing t o use the hose t o supply water t o her house, and on October 30, 1970, water service t o the four-plex was terminated by the City. Tenants living i n the four-plex moved out within a few days of the termination of i t s water services. P l a i n t i f f re- tained a s e r i e s of lawyers during the following months, but was unable t o g e t water service restored t o the four-plex. I n the spring 1971, p l a i n t i f f discontinued heat and e l e c t r i c i t y a t the four-plex; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t without r e n t a l income these u t i l i - t i e s became too expensive t o maintain. After 1971, p l a i n t i f f made no request t o the City t o restore water service t o the four-plex. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t by then, the water pipes i n the four-plex were damaged and without exten- sive repair could not carry water i f it was restored. P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s action on April 28, 1971, seeking damages f o r l o s t r e n t a l s and various expenses she allegedly incurred a s a conse- quence of the City's termination of water services t o the four- plex. The issue on appeal is whether the evidence shows the City of Glendive, acting a s a public u t i l i t y , exceeded i t s lawful authority i n terminating water services t o p l a i n t i f f ' s four-plex. Resolution of t h i s question turns on the c i t y ' s purpose i n t e r - minating the water services. P l a i n t i f f contends the City turned off the water t o the four- plex f o r the purpose of forcing her t o pay the disputed b i l l f o r unmetered water supplied t o her small house, and t o induce her t o i n s t a l l a meter there. While p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d she knew water service t o the four- plex had been terminated because of her use of the hose t o supply - 4 - water to the small house a f t e r the City had shut off the water t o that structure, she also t e s t i f i e d she was led t o believe water service to the four-plex would be restored i f she paid the dis- puted b i l l . This information allegedly was related t o her a t various times by attorneys she retained i n the course of her efforts t o have t h i s service restored. Plaintiff also t e s t i f i e d the mayor told her directly that she would have t o pay the b i l l t o get the water turned back on a t the four-plex. Further, that the c i t y water clerk told one of her attorneys, who i n turn told p l a i n t i f f , that payment of the b i l l would result i n restoration of service t o the four-plex. Plaintiff argues that i f the City would have restored water service t o the four-plex upon payment of the disputed b i l l for water supplied t o her small house, it follows the City shut. off water t o the four-plex solely t o force such payment. The City concedes i t is without authority t o terminate water services t o a structure for the purpose of forcing the resolution of a collateral dispute not affecting the structure. It contends that the evidence here shows p l a i n t i f f ' s payment of the disputed b i l l was not a condition precedent t o restoration of the four-plex's water, but that the service was terminated because p l a i n t i f f violated certain rules and regulations of the Public Service Commis- sion and Glendive c i t y ordinances by providing water to her house by means of the hose attached t o the four-plex. The mayor t e s t i f i e d that shortly a f t e r service t o the four- plex was terminated, he spoke to plaintiff and informed her that i f she reapplied for service t o the four-plex and removed the hose between it and her house, the City would restore service. The c i t y water clerk t e s t i f i e d the mayor had not instructed him t o require plaintiff t o pay the disputed b i l l a s a prerequisite to acceptance of any application plaintiff might make for restoration of service t o the four-plex. The c i t y public works director also t e s t i f i e d stating that restoration of water service to the four-plex was conditioned only on lai in tiff's discontinu- ance of her use of the hose. The notice sent by the c i t y water clerk to plaintiff two weeks before termination of service t o the four-plex s t a t e . such termination would result, i f plaintiff continued t o supply water t o t o her house by means of the hose connected/the four-plex. There is no mention in t h i s notice of the disputed b i l l , and no indica- tion that p l a i n t i f f ' s failure t o pay it would trigger the shutoff of water to the four-plex. The October 16 notice stated that plaintiff was violating regulations of the Montana Public Service Commission and a City Code by supplying water t o her house with the hose from the four-plex. The relevant rules and regulations of the City of Glendive Water Company, approved by the Public Service Commission of Montana, admitted into evidence and applicable a t the time pertinent provided: "Rule G-1. * * * Service w i l l be furnished to any consumer who fully and truly s e t s forth a l l the purposes for which water may be required and who agrees t o and conforms with a l l rules and regula- tions governing the service * * *.I1 "Rule G-5. N o plumber or other person w i l l be allowed t o make connection with any conduit, pipe o r other fixture connecting therewith or t o connect pipes when they have been disconnected, o r t o turn water off or on, on any premises, without permission from the [water] company .I1 " ~ u l e G-6. Service pipes shall be so arranged that the supply of each separate building, house or premises may be controlled by a separate curb cock, placed within o r near the line of the s t r e e t curb, under rules established by the Water Company o r c i v i l authorities, This curb cock and box must be kept i n repair and easily accessible by the owner of the premises." "Rule G-12. For violation of any of these rules, or for nonpayment of water rent, for either domestic, sprinkling or other purposes, the company has the right to turn off the water without further notice * * *.If "Rule G-13, The foregoing general rules shall be effective for a l l water u t i l i t i e s operating in Montana. * * * "In addition t o the general f l a t r a t e and meter rate rules, a u t i l i t y may adopt, subject t o the approval of the Public Service Commission, other rules t o be designated as special rules, to f i t local conditions. I n case of any apparent conflict in the rules, the general rules shall govern." "Rule M-9. I n no case w i l l the company furnish water from one meter t o two or more houses, whether the same are owned by one person o r not. 11 Glendive City Ordinance Number 418, enacted i n 1928, provides i n part: I I Sec. 2. N o plumber o r other person w i l l be allowed t o make connections with any conduit, pipe, or other fixture connecting therewith, or connect pipes when they have been disconnected, or t o turn water off or on, on any premises without permission of the water department. I1 Sec. 3. Service pipes shall be so arranged that the supply for each separate building or house may be controlled by a separate curb box placed a t the out side of the sidewalk. * * *.I1 Having heard the conflicting testimony a s t o the City's purpose i n terminating service t o the four-plex, the D i s t r i c t Court found the c i t y ' s action was not taken t o force payment of the disputed b i l l . Rather, the action was taken to discourage plaintiff from continuing the practice of supplying water t o the small house from the four-plex, a practice prohibited by the quoted rules and regulations and c i t y ordinance. I n City of Missoula v. Rose, 164 Mont. 90, 92, 519 P.2d 146 (1974), t h i s Court stated: " W e have consistently held that t h i s Court cannot substitute its weighing of the evidence for that of the t r i a l court. When there is a conflict i n the evidence, the findings of the t r i a l court are presumed t o be correct i f supported by the evidence most favorable t o the prevailing party. * * * The f a c t that there was a conflict i n the testimony does not justify a reversal where there i s sufficient evidence t o support the t r i a l court's findings of fact." There was sufficient evidence upon which the District Court could base its finding that termination of water services t o p l a i n t i f f ' s four-plex was not for the purpose of forcing the payment of the b i l l for water previously supplied t o the small house. W e note p l a i n t i f f challenged neither the rules and regula- tions nor t h e i r effect on her use of a hose t o supply water metered a t one residence, t o another unmetered residence. While a u t i l i t y may enforce reasonable regulations by terminating service t o a consumer who violates such regulations, termination should not be seen as a necessarily proper response i n every case. When there are less drastic remedies available, such a s injunc- tive o r other r e l i e f , termination w i l l not be favored. For the reasons s e t forth herein, the judgment i n the instant case i s affirmed. We Concur: Justices.