Case Title: STATE EX REL SWART v STUCKY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1975-06-11T00:00:00Z

Document:
No, 12798 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A 19 75 STATE O F M O N T A N A , on r e l a t i o n of CHARLES R. SWART, Relator and Appellant, CARL STUCKY, County Clerk and Recorder of t h e County of G a l l a t i n , S t a t e of Montana, Respondent and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eighteenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W, Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Chadwick H. Smith argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Donald C. White, Deputy County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: April 25, 1975 ~ ~ c i d e d : 3Of3 I I 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered the 0pi.nion of the Court. This is an appeal from the denial of a - c . !:-'i~damus seeking t o compel the c l e r k and recorder of Gal?.c.,:~, County t o f i l e an instrument submitted : . ; z l l a n t Charles R. Swart pursuant : : ,:e,;,--i J - 11-3872, R : . f. 1947. T ' : . s9re Charles R. Swart, a registered land surveyor (i:,-.-r .-ni;iter referred t o a s appellant), and Carl Stucky, c l e r k and recorder of Gallatin County (hereinafter referred t o a s respondent). The f a c t s can be summarized i n t h i s manner: Appellant was hired by one P r i s c i l l a Schutz t o complete a survey of a t r a c t of land located i n Gallatin County i n order t o complete a s a l e of the property. O n December 13, 1973, appellant submitted the survey t o the respondent f o r f i l i n g pursuant t o section 11-3872, t h e pertinent portion of which s t a t e s : "(1) Within one hundred eighty (180) days of the completion of a survey the registered land surveyor responsibJe f o r the survey, whether he is privately o r publid$employed, s h a l l prepare and f i l e f o r record a certificate of survey i n the county i n which the survey was made i f t h e survey: 1 I (a) provides material evidence not appearing on any map f i l e d with the county c l e r k and recorder o r contained i n the records of t h e United States bureau of land management * * *. I' Respondent clerk and recorder refused t o accept the survey a s submitted. H e contended i t must f i r s t be submitted t o t h e c i t y county planning board f o r inspection and approval and be accompanied by a $20 reviewing fee. O n December 26, appellant resubmitted the survey f o r f i l i n g with t h e respondent without having it approved by the c i t y county planning board and was again refused. Thereafter, appellant commenced t h i s action i n t h e d i s t r i c t court seeking a w r i t of mandamus t o compel respondent t o f i l e the survey. A hearing was held and on April 15, 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t court entered its findings of f a c t and conclusions of law. A judgment i n favor of respondent was entered on May 3, 1974. These a r e the issues a s presented on appeal by both p a r t i e s : 1. Does respondent have a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o accept f o r f i l i n g an instrument which represents a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey on i t s face without subjecting it t o review and approval by the c i t y county plahrting board o r other county o f f i c e r s ? 2. Is the $20 reviewing f e e proper? 3. Is t h i s appeal moot? The f i r s t i s s u e requires the review of pertinent provisions of the Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, section 11-3859, R.C. M. 1947, e t seq. This Act was passed a s an adjunct t o the police power of the l e g i s l a t u r e t o promote the p ~ ~ e *-public health, safety, and general welfare through regulation of the subdivision of land i n Montana, and t o provide a method of transferring i n t e r e s t s i n r e a l property by reference t o a "plat" o r a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". Section 11-3860. The county c l e r k and recorder i s pro- hibited from recording any instrument which purports t o t r a n s f e r t i t l e o r possession of a parcel of land which i s required t o be surveyed unless t h e required " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" o r subdivision "plat" has been f i l e d and t h e instrument of t r a n s f e r describes the t r a c t by reference t o the f i l e d " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" o r "plat". Section 11-3862(3). 11 The terms c e r t i f i c a t e of survey", "plat", and "subdivision" have important technical meanings t h a t a r e established by t h e d e f i n i t i o n section of t h e Act. Prior t o i t s amendment i n 1974, section 11-3861, R.C.M.1947, stated: "As used i n t h i s a c t , unless the context o r subject matter c l e a r l y requires otherwise, the following words o r phrases s h a l l have the following meanings: "(1) ' C e r t i f i c a t e of survey' means a drawing of a f i e l d survey prepared by a registered surveyor f o r the purpose of disclosing f a c t s pertaining t o boundary locations. I " ( 7 ) Preliminary plat' means a neat and scaled drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the layout of streets, alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision which furnish a basis for review by a governing body; and the same shall be accompanied by any proposed covenants to run with the platted land and other elements of the proposed sub- division required to furnish a basis of review by the governing body. " ( 8 ) 'Final plat' means the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the county clerk and recorder and con- taining all elements and requirements set forth in this act and in regulations adopted pursuant thereto. " ( 1 2 ) '~ubdivision' means the division of land, or land so divided, into two ( 2 ) or more parcels, whether contiguous or not, any of which is ten (10) acres or less, exclusive of public roadways, in size, without re- gard to the method of description thereof, in order that the title or possession of the parcels or any interest therein may be sold, rented, leased, or otherwise con- veyed either immediately or in the future, and shall in- clude any resubdivision of land; and shall further include any condominium or areas providing multiple space for camping trailers, house trailers or mobile homes * * *If. The classification of the instrument as a subdivision "plat" or as a "certificate of survey" is important since the Act requires different treatment, depending upon the classification. If the instrument is classified as a "plat", it must be submitted to the city or town governing body for review and approval prior to filing. The governing body can approve or reject the plat within 60 days after it has been submitted and after a public hearing has been held. Section 11-3866, R . C . M . 1947. 11 If the instrument is classified as a certificate of survey" it need not be subjected to the procedure summarized above. However, it must be filed pursuant to section 11-3872, R . C . M . 1947. This is the statute under which appellant attempted to file his survey. The instrument around which this lawsuit revolves is entitled': "A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY OF A 44.293 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF O F SECTION 13, T2S, R4E, PMM, It plainly shows t h a t t h e single parcel surveyed has an area composed of 44.293 acres. In the righthand c o m e r of t h e instru- ment appellant c e r t i f i e d t h a t he made t h e survey and it i s correctly described by the document. In addition, appellant c e r t i f i e d t h a t t h e survey was made i n compliance with applicable s t a t e s t a t u t e s . I t There i s no doubt t h a t appellant's document is a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" and not a subdivision "plat" a s defined by the Act. Its purpose i s t o e s t a b l i s h boundaries and t h e property description f o r a deed on an e n t i r e single parcel which contains an area greater than the 10 acre requirement established by section 11-3861(12), p r i o r t o i t s amendment t o 20 acres i n 1974. Furthermore, the proffered document contains no "graphical representation of a subdivision showing the division of land i n t o l o t s , parcels, s t r e e t s , and a l l e y s , and other divisions and dedications1' within the meaning of section 11-3861(6), which s e t s f o r t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a "plat". Accordingly, we hold t h a t respondent had a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o m p t appellant's document f o r f i l i n g since it contained no evidence whatsoever t h a t would bring it within the d e f i n i t i o n of a subdivision, and therefore required no review by the c i t y county planning board p r i o r t o f i l i n g . The judgment of the d i s t r i c t court i s reversed t o allow appellant a w r i t of mandamus t o compel respondent t o perform h i s c l e a r l e g a l duty i n f i l i n g appellant's " c e r t i f i c a t e In h i s second issue appellant argues t h a t i t i s improper f o r the c l e r k and recorder t o assess a $20 reviewing fee. W e agree. The Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act contains no authority f o r the assessment of a reviewing fee, p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". ?he. sole s t a t u t e dealing with fees i s section 11-3868, which provides: 1 t The governing body may e s t a b l i s h reasonable fees t o beWpaid by-the subdivider t o defray the expense of reviewing subdivision p l a t s . " (Emphasis supplied) . 11 Section 11-3868 i s c l e a r l y not applicable where a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" i s submitted f o r f i l i n g . Under statutory authority, respondent i s required t o charge a specific f i l i n g fee f o r f i l i n g instruments. Section 25-231, R.C.M. 1947. However, there i s no I1 provision that would j u s t i f y the assessment of a reviewing fee" prior t o the f i l i n g of a "certificate of survey". Neither the county c l e r k and recorder nor any other governmental authority may charge an additional fee not prescribed by s t a t u t e , o r other- wise authorized. 76 C.J.S. Records 520, provides: I t The amount of the fee f o r recording i s generally fixed by s t a t u t e , and only such fees a s a r e authorized may be charged. h he fee fixed by s t a t u t e f o r f i l i n g a paper covers every a c t necessary t o be done i n order t o complete a legal f i l i n g thereof, and no f e e may be charged f o r doing any thing i n connection with the paper not necessary t o a valid f i l i n g . * * *". The t h i r d issue on appeal is---Is t h i s appeal moot? Respondent argues t h i s appeal i s moot because: 1. Section 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, was amended i n 1974 t o provide for the prerecording review of "certificates of survey". 2. Since t h i s action was i n i t i a t e d a surveyor has been hired t o replace appellant and he has allegedly f i l e d a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" on the same property. To f u l l y understand respondent's f i r s t contention, we turn t o section 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, prior t o its 1974 amendment: "(1) A l l f i n a l subdivision p l a t s s h a l l be reviewed f o r errors and omissions i n calculation o r drafting by an examining land surveyor * * *. When the survey data sho~m on the p l a t meet the conditions s e t forth by or pursuant t o t h i s a c t , the examining surveyor s h a l l so c e r t i f y i n a printed or stamped c e r t i f i c a t e on the p l a t ; such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l be signed by him." (Emphasis supplied). In 1974, a f t e r t h i s action was i n i t i a t e d , section 11-3867 was amended t o provide: "(1) The governing body may require t h a t f i n a l sub- division p l a t s and c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey be reviewed f o r errors and omissions i n calculation o r drafting by an examining land surveyor before recording with the county c l e r k and recorder. When the survey data shown on the p l a t o r c e r t i f i c a t e of survey meet the conditions s e t f o r t h by o r pursuant t o t h i s a c t , the examining land surveyor s h a l l so c e r t i f y i n a printed or stamped c e r t i f i c a t e on the p l a t or c e r t i f i c a t e of survey; such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l be signed by him. * * *." (Emphasis supplied). W e agree with respondent t h a t section 11-3867 a s amended, provides f o r the prerecording review of c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey. However, we apply the law a s it existed when t h i s action was brought. Consequently, we cannot consider t h e e f f e c t of the amended s t a t u t e . This appeal i s not moot because of t h e 1974 amendment t o section 11-3867. Peterson v. Livestock Commission, 120 Mont. 140, 181 P.2d 152. 1 1 Respondent a l s o argues t h i s appeal i s moot because a c e r t i - f i c a t e of surveyt' has allegedly been f i l e d by one Lewis Tout, a surveyor hired t o replace appellant a f t e r he was prevented from f i l i n g h i s " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". Again, we disagree t h a t t h i s alleged f a c t renders t h i s matter moot. Section 11-3872(1)(a), provides t h a t a registered surveyor is compelled t o prepare and f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey i f t h e survey "(a) provides material evidence not appearing on any map f i l e d with the county c l e r k and recorder or contained i n the records of t h e United States bureau of land management. I 1 Appellant argues the c e r t i f i c a t e of survey f i l e d by Tout is not i d e n t i c a l t o t h e survey he attempted t o f i l e and t h a t h i s ' I survey discloses evidence material not appearing on any map f i l e d with the clounty c l e r k and recorder." Assuming t h a t Tout did f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey, a f a c t which does not appear i n t h e record before us, it i s respondent's duty t o demonstrate the two surveys a r e i n f a c t i d e n t i c a l , and t h a t it i s n o t necessary f o r appellant t o f i l e h i s survey i n order t o make t h i s matter moot. This respondent has not done. Therefore, respondent's second argu- ment i n regard t o mootness must f a i l . The judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to grant the writ of mandamus and award attorney fees to appellant in the amount of $1,000. We Concur: - - - L - * P - - " I - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chief Justice / Justices. 4