Case Title: HOLMSTROM LAND CO v HUNTER

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1979-05-16T00:00:00Z

Document:
N o . 14549 IN THE SUPRE2-B COURT O F THE STA!I'E O F IvDNI'ANA 1979 Plaintiff and Appllant , Defendant a n d Respondent. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Mxtana For Respondent: -re, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, mntana Su3snitted on briefs: March 29, 1979 Decided: 5 1979 Filed: 'MFS" - g , . ) ? . j M r . 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. P l a i n t i f f Holmstrom Land Company (Holmstrom) appeals from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Fourteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Meagher County, dated May 16 and J u l y 19, 1978, i n f a v o r of William R. Hunter. This appeal involves a d i s p u t e over charges made by t h e water commissioner f o r dispensing waters i n t h e Newlan Creek Water District. On October 18, 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Fourteenth J u d i c i a l District, i n a proceeding concerning d i s t r i b u t i o n of t h e waters of Newlan Creek, i s s u e d a n o r d e r g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e water commissioners who had been appointed t o administer t h e waters of Newlan Creek. The hearing r e s u l t i n g i n t h e o r d e r was h e l d on complaint of Robert J. Weitz, p r e s i d e n t of Holmstrom. Holmstrom has decreed water r i g h t s i n both Sheep Creek and Newlan Creek l o c a t e d i n Meagher County. I t u s e s Newlan Creek as a con- d u i t f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of approximately 1000 inches of Sheep Creek water t o i t s headgates and d i t c h e s . The c o u r t o r d e r of October 18, 1976, c o n t a i n s t h e following d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e commissioner: "Water Commissioner F u l l e r was t o l d by t h e Court t o keep t r a c k of w a t e r from Sheep Creek coming i n t o Newlan Creek, and a s s e s s Holmstrom Land Company f o r Sheep Creek Water d i s t r i b u t e d through Newlan Creek, i f he u s e s any of h i s t i m e i n dispensing it. Holmstrom Land Company t o g e t t h e amount of water from Sheep Creek they p u t i n t o Newlan Creek, less about 10 per- c e n t f o r seepage, e t c . " Defendant Hunter was appointed water commissioner on June 7, 1977, t o c a r r y o u t t h e October o r d e r . I n 1977 Holmstrom was b i l l e d by defendant on t h e b a s i s of both Newlan Creek and Sheep Creek waters. Holmstrom r e f u s e d t o pay, and defendant padlocked Holmstrom's headgate i n a n a t t e m p t t o c o l l e c t . Holmstrom then brought t h i s a c t i o n . Hunter defended on t h e grounds he was only f o l - lowing t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r ; t h a t Holmstrom was n o t pursuing t h e proper procedural remedy; and t h a t Holmstrom was t r y i n g t o c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k t h e October 18, 1976, o r d e r even though it had n o t appealed t h a t o r d e r . The D i s t r i c t Court found t h a t Hunter was a c t i n g pur- s u a n t t o i t s o r d e r , t h a t t h e charges were reasonable, and t h a t it was necessary f o r Hunter t o r e t a i n counsel. The c o u r t then concluded t h a t s e c t i o n s 89-1012 and 89-1013, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 and 85-5-205 MCA, con- s t i t u t e d t h e s o l e remedy f o r one who o b j e c t s t o t h e charges of a water commissioner appointed by c o u r t o r d e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r concluded t h i s s u i t c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k upon its o r d e r of October 18, 1976. The c o u r t then ordered judgment f o r Hunter and ordered Holmstrom t o pay t h e whole sum owing t o Hunter. A f t e r a n e v i d e n t i a r y hearing t h e c o u r t a l s o ordered, on J u l y 19, 1978, t h a t Holmstrom pay Hunter $750 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s . Although Holmstrom l i s t s e i g h t i s s u e s on appeal, w e determine t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e two following i s s u e s w i l l d i s p o s e of t h i s appeal: 1. Whether t h e attempt t o s e c u r e t h e r e l i e f set f o r t h i n t h e complaint of Holmstrom c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k upon t h e c o u r t o r d e r dated October 18, 1976? 2 . Whether t h e District Court was c o r r e c t i n o r d e r i n g Holmstrom t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s t o Hunter? The prayer t o Holmstrom's complaint r e q u e s t s i n major p a r t t h a t " t h e accounting of t h e Commissioner be recalcu- l a t e d i n accordance w i t h t h e u s e s of t h e w a t e r s of ~ e w l a n Creek, e x c l u s i v e of - any _ _ _ - and a l l u s e s of w a t e r s - of Sheep Creek . . ." (Emphasis added.) That t h i s requested r e l i e f i s an a t t e m p t t o negate t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r of October 18, 1976, s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t i n g t h e water commissioner t o keep t r a c k of water coming i n t o Newlan Creek from Sheep Creek and t o a s s e s s Holmstrom f o r any t i m e used i n d i s p e n s i n g Sheep Creek water, i s obvious. Such a n a t t e m p t c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e s a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on t h e e a r l i e r o r d e r . The g e n e r a l r u l e i n c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n i s w e l l expressed i n t h e following language: "'By " c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k " is meant "every pro- ceeding i n which t h e i n t e g r i t y of a judgment i s challenged, except t h o s e made i n t h e a c t i o n wherein t h e judgment i s rendered o r by appeal, and except s u i t s brought t o o b t a i n d e c r e e s de- c l a r i n g judgments t o be void - a b i n i t i o . " . . .' [ C i t a t i o n s omitted. 1 " I t has been w e l l - s e t t l e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t a c o u r t w i l l o v e r t u r n a judgment on c o l l a t e r a l a t - t a c k only i f t h e judgment i s void on i t s f a c e , and it appears a f f i r m a t i v e l y from t h e judgment r o l l t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r committed an act i n excess of i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " E s t a t e of Hofmann (1957), 132 Mont. 387, 395, 318 P.2d 230, 236. It t h u s becomes t h e d u t y of t h i s Court t o determine whether t h e i n i t i a l o r d e r i s void on i t s f a c e o r beyond t h e powers of t h e District Court. W e conclude it i s n o t . S e c t i o n 89-891.1, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-411 MCA, provides : "Water a p p r o p r i a t e d under an e x i s t i n g r i g h t o r pursuant t o t h i s act may be turned i n t o t h e n a t u r a l channel of another stream, o r from a r e s e r v o i r i n t o t h e n a t u r a l channel, and with- drawn o r d i v e r t e d a t a p o i n t downstream f o r b e n e f i c i a l use, b u t t h e waters of t h a t stream may n o t thereby be diminished i n q u a n t i t y o r d e t e r i o r a t e d i n q u a l i t y t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of a p r i o r appropriator." Thus, it i s incumbent upon t h e D i s t r i c t Court, a s t h e e n t i t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u p e r v i s i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of water among a l l a p p r o p r i a t o r s and f o r supervising a l l water commis- s i o n e r s , s e c t i o n 89-896, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-406 MCA, t o i n s u r e t h a t appropriators of Newlan Creek water w e r e n o t adversely a f f e c t e d by Holmstrom's use of Newlan Creek a s a conduit f o r its Sheep Creek waters. A l e g i t i m a t e and l o g i c a l way t o do t h i s i s t o r e q u i r e t h e water commissioners t o measure t h e flow of Sheep Creek water i n t o Newlan Creek i n dispensing t h e waters according t o t h e decreed r i g h t s of t h e p a r t i e s . Water commissioner Hunter, although appointed a f t e r t h e October 1976 o r d e r , is nevertheless bound by it. Luppold v. L e w i s (1977), - Mont . , 563 P.2d 538, 542, 34 St.Rep. 227, 231. Holmstrom, a s t h e holder of t h e de- creed r i g h t s , must pay f o r t h e proportionate c o s t s of t h e commissioner's f e e s and compensation. Section 89-1001(5), R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-5-101(4) MCA. I f Holmstrom wanted t o challenge t h e D i s t r i c t Court order of October 18, 1976, as it r e l a t e d t o assessments of h i s Sheep Creek water, t h e proper l e g a l procedure would have been an appeal w i t h i n t h e proper time. Rules l ( a ) and 5, M.R.App.Civ.P. Holmstrom d i d not appeal. The c u r r e n t c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k i s n o t a permissible means by which t o make t h i s challenge. Nor does it appear, i n f a c t , t h a t t h e o r d e r i s challengeable. Conversely, i f Holmstrom wanted t o challenge t h e appor- tionment of f e e s and expenses by t h e water commissioner, it should have followed t h e procedure set f o r t h i n s e c t i o n s 89- 1012 and 89-1013, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 and 85- 5-205 MCA. This it a l s o f a i l e d t o do. Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t Court order of October 18, 1976, and t h e w a t e r commissioner's assessment f i l e d i n J u l y 1977 a r e f i n a l and binding. O n t h i s f i r s t i s s u e , t h e judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. A s t o t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s t o Hunter, t h e D i s - t r i c t Court a f t e r r e c e i v i n g evidence i n support of an award f o r $959, awarded f e e s i n t h e amount of $750. Although t h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e s e f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court found it was necessary f o r Hunter t o r e t a i n counsel i n t h i s m a t t e r and concluded t h a t it had t h e power, as a c o u r t of e q u i t y , t o o r d e r Holmstrom t o pay Hunter's reasonable a t t o r n e y f e e s . W e agree. This s u i t was brought a g a i n s t Hunter p e r s o n a l l y f o r a c t s undertaken i n h i s c a p a c i t y a s a duly appointed water commissioner a c t i n g pursuant t o a lawful c o u r t o r d e r . Were water commissioners r e q u i r e d t o defend o u t of t h e i r p e r s o n a l funds a g a i n s t s u i t s brought a g a i n s t them f o r t h e i r o f f i c i a l a c t s , no one would be w i l l i n g t o s e r v e a s water commissioner. Where t h e s u i t i s without m e r i t , a s i n t h i s c a s e , it i s only proper t h a t t h e c o s t s should be borne by t h e water u s e r i n s t i t u t i n g t h e a c t i o n . Courts of e q u i t y have t h e i n h e r e n t power t o g r a n t t h e r e l i e f t h a t j u s t i c e r e q u i r e s . Tiffany v. Uhde (1950), 123 Mont. 507, 512-13, 216 P.2d 375, 378. I n a r e c e n t c a s e , t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The c o u r t a l s o r e s e r v e s t h e power t o g r a n t com- p l e t e r e l i e f under i t s e q u i t y power. This i s meant t o e s t a b l i s h no s r e c e d e n t , b u t must be determined on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s . " I f e q u i t y i s t o be done i n a s i t u a t i o n such a s t h i s , t h e a t t o r n e y f e e must be s u s t a i n e d . Plain- t i f f Anderson sought t o b r i n g defendant Eggan i n t o t h e l a w s u i t when she had a s s e r t e d no claim a g a i n s t him and had no i n t e n t i o n of doing so. For t h i s reason she submitted a motion t o dismiss which was g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . P l a i n t i f f Anderson forced her t o secure t h e s e r v i c e s of an a t t o r n e y t o examine t h e c a s e and submit a motion t o dismiss and through no f a u l t on h e r p a r t t o i n c u r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . I f defendant Eggan i s dismissed from t h e c a s e and n o t awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s , she w i l l n o t b e made whole o r re- turned t o t h e same p o s i t i o n as b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f Anderson attempted t o b r i n g h e r i n t o t h e lawsuit." Foy v . Anderson (1978), Mont. , 580 P. 2d 114, 116-17, 35 St.Rep. 811, 814. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s analogous. Holm- strom sued Hunter, b u t i t s r e a l q u a r r e l was w i t h t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A t no t i m e has Holmstrom a s s e r t e d t h a t Hunter s e r i o u s l y d e v i a t e d from t h e o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t . J u s t a s Anderson had no reason o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r dragging Eggan i n t o t h e l a w s u i t i n t h e above c i t e d c a s e , Holmstrom had no reason t o sue Hunter. J u s t i c e , e q u i t y and good conscience d i c t a t e t h a t Holmstrom should b e a r t h e c o s t s of t h e defense of t h e a c t i o n . The award and amount of a t t o r n e y f e e s i s affirmed. N o proper a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s being f i l e d on a p p e a l , they a r e hereby denied. The judgment of t h e District Court i s affirmed. W e concur: M r . Chief J u s t i c e Haswell concurring i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n p a r t : I concur i n a f f i r m i n g t h e judgment of t h e District Court on t h e f i r s t i s s u e . I d i s s e n t from t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e reasons s t a t e d i n m y d i s s e n t i n Foy v. Anderson (1978), Mont. , 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , 117, 35 St.Rep. 811, 815. An award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under t h e g u i s e of making t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y whole i s a p p l i c a b l e t o any c a s e ; permits such an award i n t h e absence of s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t ; and c o n s t i t u t e s a c l e a r example of j u d i c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . Where n e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e nor t h e p a r t i e s have provided f o r such a n award, I would a b s t a i n from g r a n t i n g it. 4;&~k- Chief ~ u s t y c e