Case Title: WHEELER v ARMSTRONG

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1972-06-09T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 12192 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1972 J A M E S E. WHEELER and EDITH WHEELER, Plaintiffs and Appellants, R A L P H A R M S T R O N G , CLIFFORD PASHA, W A L T E R SALES, et a 1 . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, Honorable M. James Sorte, Judge presiding, Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Lyman H, Bennett, Jr, argued, Bozeman, Montana. For Respondents: Thomas A. Olson, County Attorney, argued, Bozeman, Montana. Filed: JUN - 9 1 S h Submitted: April 18, 1972 Decided : J U N - 9 1 % M r . Justice Wesley Castles delivered the Opinion of the Court. T h i s i s an appeal from an order of the d i s t r i c t court in Gallatin County, the Honorable M. James Sorte, presiding. Judge Sorte's order of September 28, 1971 , reads : "Defendants moved to dismiss the petition on f i l e here- in upon the ground that essentially the same matters and the same parties now before the Court, were pre- sented i n local cause No. 19205, Planning and Zoning Commission vs. James E. Wheeler and heard by Hon. Sid G. Stewart, presiding Judge, and that the final judgment i n that cause was binding on the Zoning Commission and on this Court on the questions presented in the Plain- t i f f s ' petition. "The matter was fully argued by both counsel and the Court having taken judicial notice of local causes, No. 18954 and No. 19205, and being fully advised as to the law, "IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss the petition on f i l e herein i s granted, and the relief sought i n the petition i s denied." I t is from Judge Sorte's order that the Wheelers now appeal t o this Court. Appellants here were plaintiffs below and will be referred to hereafter as the Landowners. Respondents are members of the Zoning Board of Planning and Zoning District No. One, Gallatin County and will be hereafter referred to as the Zoning Board. Three of the named defendants are also the county commissioners of Gal 1 atin County. The Landowners owned some eight acres of land which l i e s directly west of Bozeman. In 1970, Landowners made some attempts to Use their vacant land for a mobile home court which eventually would contain some forty-seven trailers or mobile homes. A t that time, there were no restrictions on the use of the land. In the same year, 1970, other landowners i n the area, who had been trying to establish a zoning d i s t r i c t since about the year 1966, filed an action seeking a writ of mandamus to force the county commissioners to act on establishment of a zoning district. On M a y 18, 1970, the parties to the man- damus action appeared before Judge Victor H. Fall and consented to the find- ings of fact and conclusions of law and a judgment. Judge Fall found that the county commissioners had appointed a planning and zoning commission and had created a valid planning and zoning district. H e found, however, that no development pattern, required by the statute, had been made and he directed such a pattern to be adopted. On June 5, 1970, Landowner, James Wheeler was made a party and was enjoined from proceeding with the construction of the t r a i l e r court until a hearing could be had. Wheeler, through counsel, entered the case by motion to quash the restraining order and thereafter Judge Fall lifted the injunction. Wheeler, one of the Landowners, continued to be a party t o the suit. On June 12, 1970, the Zoning Board adopted ordinances for the area i n question which defined a rural residential zone and the existence of mobile home courts or parks a "conditional use". A procedure was s e t forth for obtaining permission to build a "conditional use". N o appeal was taken by any party to that lawsuit. A t the time of the adoption of the foregoing ordinance on June 12, Landowners had moved three mobile homes onto their land and had provided services for three more, making a total of six. Subsequently Landowners continued to move mobile homes onto the land. On November 2 , 1970, the county attorney filed an action for injunction t o stop the construction of the mobile home court. This matter was tried in the d i s t r i c t court on Jan- uary 15, 1971 , w i t h the Zoning Board, Landowners and neighboring l andowners a l l participants. The t r i a l court, Judge Sid Stewart then presiding, con- cluded that Wheelers had established a nonconforming use for six trailers. Wheelers were permanently enjoined from further violations of the ordinance and were ordered to remove all b u t six trailers. T h i s order was dated May 3 , 1971. Wheelers did not comply with the order to remove a l l but six t r a i l - ers; and, i n fact, continued to move more t r a i l e r s on i n vi.olation of the order. The neighboring landowners then sought, on June 24, 1971, by motion to enforce the judgment, to force Wheelers t o comply. After this attempt to enforce the judgment, the Wheelers then, on June 30, 1971, filed a petition for variance before the Zoning Board. On July 9, 1971, the Zoning Board denied the petition for variance on two grounds: (a) a l l of the matters raised have been presented to the d i s t r i c t court and the d i s t r i c t court has made i t s decision; and (b) i t was the opinion of the Board that the public interest would not be served by a granting of the variance a t this l a t e date. Meanwhile, on the same day, July 9, 1971, Judge Stewart held a hearing on the motion t o enforce t h e judgment mentioned above; and a t the conclusion, the court noted that the previous judgment was clear, that the nonconforming use was 1 imited t o six trailers, and said: "That i s the order of the Court. And i t will be carried out. And i f counsel desires t o have the de- fendants cited into court for contempt well, they may do so. If they do, that i s going to be the ruling of the Court until i t i s changed and until proper procedures are brought for a change. Definitely, they are violat- ing the Court Order when they have more than six t r a i l e r s on that court. If you wish, you may draw an order to that effect and have the sheriff serve i t upon them. That may eliminate a contempt procedure. The Court would be willing to go ahead w i t h that." Judge Stewart having indicated that the next step i n the proceed- ing would have to be a contempt hearing, Intervenors on August 3, 1971 , filed an action charging contempt. Judge Stewart was thereupon disqualified and the matter heard by the Honorable Bernard W. Thomas on September 1, 1971. After hearing testimony, Judge Thomas gave the Wheelers until Octo- ber 12, 1971 t o comply w i t h the judgment. The Wheelers s t i l l refused to comply w i t h Judge Stewart's order and failed to bring their property into compl iance by the dead1 ine of October 12, 1971. Thereafter, counsel for the Intervenors filed an affidavit stating that ten t r a i l e r houses remained on the property and on October 18, 1971, Judge Thomas found the Wheelers to be in contempt and fined each of them T w o hundred f i f t y dollars ($250.00) plus the s u m of Twenty-five do1 lars ($25.00) each per day that the Wheelers remained i n contempt of court. On October 21, 1971, the Wheelers indicated to the Court that they were i n compliance w i t h Judge Stewart's order and paid to the clerk of the d i s t r i c t court the sum of $600 representing a contempt fine. Heretofore w e have recited the filing, an June 30, of the peti- tion for variance before the Zoning Board. Cause No. 19630. Variance appeal presently before the Court. A s indicated above, on or about June 30, 1971, the Wheelers submitted a "Petition for Variance" to the Zoning Board. Essentially the petition for variance s e t forth that the Wheelers after learning that i n the spring of 1970 there were no regulations prohibiting a mobile home court i n the area, converted their eight acres of land into a mobile home court and re- ceived approval from the Gallatin County Health office. Also, that a non- conforming use for six trailers had been established, that the lands were and useless for any other purpose, /that the creation of the mobile home court was done i n reliance upon assurances of the county officials that the Wheelers had exhausted their resources and would suffer hardship i f the zoning ordinance were "strictly enforced" as against petitioners. Also, i t was alleged there was no health or safety problem created and that the value of nearby property would not be damaged by use of the eight acres as a mobile home court. I t was alleged that the immediate neighbors did not object to the maintenance of the mobile home court. As indicated above the Zoning Board met and considered the peti- tion, without pub1 i c hearing, and notice, and elected to deny the petition upon the grounds the matter had been considered by the d i s t r i c t court and the d i s t r i c t court had made i t s decision. Further, the Board held that the public interest would not be served by the granting of a variance a t such a late time. W e repeat some of the dates heretofore recited. The petition for variance was filed June 30, 1971. The Zoning Board denied the petition on July 9, 1971. Judge Sorte's order dismissing the petition was on September 28, 1971. Meanwhile, i n the other action concerned w i t h the attempt of the Zoning Board to enforce Judge Stewart's judgment, the motion was filed on June 24, 1971 (before the petition for variance). On July 9, 1971 , Judge Stewart ruled as heretofore quoted. The contempt action was filed on August 3 , 1971. Judge Thomas gave Wheelers until October 12, 1971 to comply, and on failure, Judge Thomas fined them for contempt. This was paid on October 21 , 1971 . Thus w e have Landowners Wheeler fail ing to comply with court orders during the same time they are petitioning for variance for the very same activity they are i n contempt for. A different judge now, Judge Sorte, considers the appeal from the order denying a variance; b u t takes judicial notice of the other f i l e s i n that court. Appellant Landowners state four issues for review; which w e sum- marize as being whether the Landowners are entitled to a hearing on their petition for variance. Respondents do not squarely answer the contentions of appel lants, but rather s e t up two reasons why the d i s t r i c t court was correct. These reasons are (1) the issues presented on the petition for variance are the same as decided i n local Cause No. 19250, involving the same parties, and (2) that the Zoning Board did not e r r since the issues and parties are the same. The situation here i s this: Landowners Wheeler were fighting on one front to stop the application of the new zoning ordinances to their property. They succeeded to the extent of six mobile homes. While that battle i s going on, Landowners Wheeler attempt to conform to the zoning ordinance by petitioning the Zoning Board for a variance. Meanwhile the Zoning Board battles to stop the Wheelers i n the court action. While that battle rages, they summarily deny the petition for variance on the grounds that the court has decided the matter and the public interest would not be served a t this late date. Respondents would have us apply the rules of res adjudicata as stated i n Brannon v. Lewis & Clark Cty., 143 Mont. 200, 387 P.2d 706; Smith v. Baxter, 148 Mont. 291, 419 P.2d 752; and Smith v. County of Musselshell, 155 Mont. 376, 472 P.2d 878. The criteria are: (1) Parties the same; ( 2 ) Subject matter of the action the same; (3) The issues must be the same and must relate to the same subject matter; and (4) The capacities of other persons must be the same i n reference to the subject matter and to the issues between them. I t would appear, i f these criteria have been met, that Landowners Wheeler have had due process, have had their opportunity to be heard on a l l matters. The respondents then go on to argue that even though a variance i s not the same as a defense and proof of a nonconforming use, that the designation of the petition as a "variance" petition i s somehow i n bad faith. However, the fact that Landowners Wheeler had failed to establish a nonconforming use to all eight acres they owned, does not detract from the fact that they were successful in establishing a nonconforming use to s i x units. To then seek a variance for the balance does not strike this Court as evidence of "bad faith". I t i s true that they were in contempt and paid fines for contempt, b u t they have simply never had a hearing on their petition for variance. While the difficulties of convincing the Zoning Board under the facts and circumstances here are readily apparent, a t the very least due process requires an opportunity to be heard. I t is clear that under the criteria heretofore s e t forth, the same issue i s not present. A nonconforming use and a variance are simply not the same. Accordingly Judge Sorte's order appealed from i s set aside and the matter returned to the district court for hearing on the peti- tion for variance.