Case Title: STATE v FOURTH JUD DIST COURT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1985-06-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
No. 8 4 - 4 5 3 I N THE SUPREBE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAXA 1 9 8 5 STATE ex rel., JOHN FOSS, R e l a t o r , DISTRICT COURT OF THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AI'JD FOR THE COUNTY OF RAVALLI, AND THE WARD IRRIGATION DISTRICT, R e s p o n d e n t s . ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: COUNSEL OF RECORD: F o r R e l a t o r : L o b l e & P a u l y , H e l e n a , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : R e c h t & G r e e f ; C h a r l e s H. R e c h t , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a S u b m i t t e d : January 2 1 , 1985 D e c i d e d : June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 -- -- C l e r k Mr. Justice L.C. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the Court. Relator, John Foss, petitions this Court to review by a writ of certiorari an order of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ravalli County, holding him in contempt of court. This proceeding is a continuation of Ravalli County, Cause No. 6999, "In the Matter of the Establishment and Organization of the Ward Irrigation District." The District Court's continuing jurisdiction over the District, and this action, began with the petition filed by certain parties to form the Ward Irrigation District on April 6, 1938. General- ly, the only actions involving the District that the District Court has been called to rule upon has been audits, administrative matters, petitions for the inclusion of lands, and other matters pertaining to the operation of the District. The controversy that eventually led to this Cause No. 84-453, and its companion case, Cause No. 84-298, was first brought before the District Court in 1979. On April 30, 1979, Ralph Springer, Ronald M. Porter and George W. Else, all commissioners of the Ward Irrigation District filed affidavits with the District Court alleging that John Foss, relator in this action, "without permission removed padlocks from diversion dam [sic] in Ward Irrigation Ditch and refused to replace or return locks to Ward Irrigation commissioner (s) . " Based upon those affidavits, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order and, on June 4, 1979, held a hearing on the order to show cause why the temporary restraining order should not be made permanent. Both the Irrigation District and John Foss were represented at that hearing, and both presented evidence pertaining to the control of the headgate in issue. The District Court, in t h a t a c t i o n , found t h a t John Foss was n o t i n contempt of c o u r t . The c o u r t ' s o r d e r included a temporary i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t John Foss from i n t e r f e r i n g " i n any way w i t h t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , r e g u l a t i o n , o r c o n t r o l o f t h e dams, d i t c h e s , h e a d g a t e s and o t h e r m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e [ D i s t r i c t ] . " F u r t h e r , t h e June 11, 1979 o r d e r d i r e c t e d John Foss and o t h e r members o f t h e F o s s r a n c h t o a p p e a r on August 31, 1979, t o show c a u s e why t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n should n o t b e made permanent. The t r a n s c r i p t i n d i c a t e s t h a t a t t h e t i m e t h e District C o u r t i s s u e d t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n , it s t r o n g l y urged t h e F o s s Ranch t o s e e k a n o t h e r remedy, such a s a n a d j u d i c a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i v e r i g h t s and p r i o r i t i e s i n t h e w a t e r s o f t h e a f f e c t e d d i t c h e s , i n s t e a d o f s e e k i n g t h e same a d j u d i c a t i o n i n t h e i n j u n c t i v e a c t i o n . The c o u r t s t a t e d : " W e l l , t h e r e h a s been c o n s i d e r a b l e t e s t i m o n y c o n c e r n i n g w a t e r r i g h t s , w a t e r r i g h t s on Camas Creek, p o i n t s o f d i v e r - s i o n s i n c l u d i n g p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n on Camas Creek. I d o n ' t b e l i e v e t h o s e i s s u e s a r e p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a t t h i s t i m e . I would s t r o n g l y u r g e coun- sel t o p u r s u e t h o s e remedies. Obviously you [ c o u n s e l f o r t h e Fosses] f e e l t h a t M r . Foss h a s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n , b u t once a g a i n I d o n ' t f e e l t h e y a r e p r o p e r l y b e f o r e t h e c o u r t a t t h i s t i m e . There a r e j u d i c i a l remedies a v a i l a b l e i f he d o e s have such a c a u s e o f a c t i o n , and a s I s a i d b e f o r e , I would s t r o n g l y u r g e you t o p u r s u e t h o s e . . . . "I w i l l set t h e o r d e r f o r 60 d a y s t o g i v e you an o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i l e a n a c t i o n , . . . what I would d o i s set it f o r a n o t h e r show c a u s e h e a r i n g t o show why it s h o u l d n ' t b e made permanent i f you have n o t i n f a c t sought a n o t h e r remedy. " Counsel f o r t h e F o s s e s d i d n o t p e t i t i o n f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f w a t e r r i g h t s p r i o r t o t h e August 31, 1979, h e a r i n g . A t t h a t h e a r i n g , o n l y t h e c o u n s e l f o r t h e I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t appeared, and a d v i s e d t h e c o u r t t h a t no f u r t h e r o r d e r s w e r e r e q u e s t e d , s t a t i n g : "Counsel f o r t h e F o s s e s , Doug S k e l s e t , h a s asked t h a t we c o n t i n u e t h e temporary o r d e r i n f o r c e without d a t e . I have no o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t , your honor, a s long a s it i s understood t h a t a t any time I can r e n o t i c e t h e m a t t e r b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o make it permanent. "The c o u r t : So ordered, thank you." Nothing a p p a r e n t l y happened f o r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s . Neither t h e D i s t r i c t appeared b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o make t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n permanent, nor d i d t h e Fosses p e t i t i o n f o r a determination of water r i g h t s . Then, on June 8 , 1983, Dean F r o s t , Ronald P o r t e r and Ralph S p r i n g e r , a l l commission- ers o f t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court a l l e g i n g t h a t Millo Huggins, a r e l a t i v e of t h e Fosses, and a c t i n g i n h e r c a p a c i t y a s agent t h e r e o f , i n t e r f e r e d w i t h t h e o p e r a t i o n o f t h e District's headgate system. Based on t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s s u e d a n o t h e r temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and o r d e r t o show cause. A h e a r i n g o n ' t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was set f o r J u l y 7, 1983. P r i o r t o t h a t , t h e Fosses f i l e d w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t Court a "Request for Determination o f R e l a t i v e Water Rights," a s k i n g t h e District Court t o determine t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of t h e water r i g h t s o f t h e v a r i o u s p a r t i e s involved i n t h i s l i t i g a t i o n , and t o determine t h e r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s o f t h e w a t e r s i n Hayes Creek, t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n Ditch and Camas Creek. Hearings on t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w e r e held on J u l y 7 and J u l y 2 6 , 1983. Both p a r t i e s were r e p r e s e n t e d by counsel. The D i s t r i c t Court, s t a t i n g t h a t it had heard t h e testimony of t h e v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , argument o f counsel, and having reviewed t h e pleadings on t h e r e c o r d , found M i l l o Huggins i n contempt o f c o u r t f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e August 31, 1979, i n j u n c t i o n . F u r t h e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court continued t h e i n j u n c t i o n i n e f f e c t by o r d e r i n g : "3. M i l l o Huggins, John Foss, t h e owners o f t h e Foss ranch, t h e r e l a t i v e s , s e r v a n t s , a g e n t s and employees a r e hereby ordered and enjoined from i n t e r - f e r i n g i n any way, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , w i t h t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n District, i t s commis- s i o n e r s , d i t c h walkers, a g e n t s and employees. "4. M i l l o Huggins, John Foss, t h e owners o f t h e Foss ranch, t h e r e l a t i v e s , s e r v a n t s , a g e n t s and employees, a r e hereby ordered and enjoined from i n t e r - f e r i n g i n any way, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y with t h e a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , r e g u l a t i o n , o r c o n t r o l o f t h e dams, d i t c h e s , headgates and o t h e r m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n District." M i l l o Huggins d i d n o t ask t h i s Court t o review by c e r t i o r a r i t h e o r d e r adjudging h e r i n contempt. The Fosses' p e t i t i o n f o r an a d j u d i c a t i o n o f r e l a t i v e water r i g h t s went ahead i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A f t e r s e v e r a l p r e l i m i n a r i e s , i n c l u d i n g a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge, t h e m a t t e r was heard on December 1 4 , 1983, by t h e Honorable Robert M. H o l t e r , D i s t r i c t Judge. Judge H o l t e r , a f t e r h e a r i n g evidence and reviewing t h e record i s s u e d f i n d i n g s and conclusions on A p r i l 1 7 , 1984. That o r d e r i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e appeal i n Cause No. 84-298. The n e x t summer, i n 1984, t h i s m a t t e r a r o s e . Affida- v i t s o f t h e commissioners o f t h e District and a motion by t h e District f o r an o r d e r holding John Foss i n contempt o f c o u r t were f i l e d . This m a t t e r was heard by Judge Henson and i n h i s f i n d i n g s he recognized t h e August 4 , 1983 o r d e r , (quoted above) found t h a t John Foss had been aware o f s a i d o r d e r , and found a l s o t h a t he had w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e d i t s t e r m s . H e t h e n found John Foss i n contempt of c o u r t , f i n e d him $500 and sentenced him t o s e r v e f i v e days i n t h e R a v a l l i County j a i l suspended on c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . The D i s t r i c t Court f u r t h e r granted t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y s f e e s and c o s t s . John Foss appea1.s from t h i s o r d e r , p r e s e n t i n g t h e following i s s u e s f o r review: 1. That no v a l i d i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r was ever i s s u e d and nor i s i n j u n c t i o n a remedy a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s proceeding; t h e r e f o r e , t h e District Court was powerless t o f i n d r e l a t o r i n contempt. 2. That t h e D i s t r i c t Court judge no longer had j u r i s - d i c t i o n t o t r y t h e m a t t e r . 3. That t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g r e l a t o r Foss t o pay a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . O n reviewing a contempt c i t a t i o n by w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , w e a r e l i m i t e d t o t h e following c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : whether t h e lower c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t h e o r d e r and secondly, whether t h e r e i s evidence supporting t h e same. I n Re t h e Marriage o f Smith (Mont. 1984), 686 P.2d 912, 4 1 St.Rep. 2325; Milanovich v. Milanovich (Mont. 1982), 655 P.2d 963, 39 St.Rep. 963; Schneider v. Ostwald (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 617 P.2d 1293, 37 St.Rep. 1728; I n t h e Matter o f t h e Contempt o f Graveley and Hammerbacker (1980), 188 Mont. 5 4 6 , 614 P.2d R e l a t o r argues t h a t t h e District Court was without j u r i s d i c t i o n t o f i n d him i n contempt. S e c t i o n 3-1-501, MCA, s t a t e s t h a t : "The following a c t s o r omissions i n r e s p e c t t o a c o u r t o f j u s t i c e o r proceedings t h e r e i n a r e contempts o f t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t : " (e) disobedience of any lawful judgment, o r d e r , o r p r o c e s s o f t h e c o u r t ; . . ." Here, r e l a t o r argues t h a t t h e o r d e r he was found t o have v i o l a t e d was n o t "lawful" and t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t Court had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o f i n d him i n contempt. H e argues t h a t no v a l i d i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r was e v e r i s s u e d , nor i s an i n j u n c t i o n remedy a v a i l a b l e i n t h i s type o f proceeding. C i t i n g t h e g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t an i n j u n c t i o n i s an a c t i o n a n c i l l a r y t o another a c t i o n and i s an e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy a v a i l a b l e only when t h e r e i s an underlying proceeding pending, section 27-19-101, MCA, and State ex rel. Working v. Mayor (1911), 43 Mont. 61, 114 P. 777, he points out that the only documents the District Court had before it prior to issuing the August 31, 1979, temporary injunction were the three affidavits filed by the Ward District commissioners. These affidavits do not contain the elements requisite to a pleading, and thus no action was pending at the time that order was issued. Relator's argument is without merit. He neglects to observe that he was found in contempt of court for violating the August 4, 1983, order. At the time of that order, at relators own instance, an action was pending. Although the existence of an underlying action was not specifically pled in the District's motion or the affidavits, the District Court in the 1983 order finding Millo Huggans in contempt, and making permanent the injunction stated that it had read "the pleadings" herein and was "advised thereof. " Further, the affidavits filed in support of the District's motion contain the necessary elements to find relator in contempt. Relator cites section 27-19-102, MCA and argues that an injunction is improper in this action because there was no "obligation existing in favor of the applicant." This argu- ment is also not persuasive. The August 4, 1983, order clearly obligated relator to refrain from tampering with any of the District's distribution system. Relator had notice of his obligation and willfully violated it. The District Court both had jurisdiction to issue the contempt order and had evidence before it to support the same. Secondly, relator argues that Judge Henson was without jurisdiction to find him in contempt because he had ceded jurisdiction of the underlying adjudication action to Judge Holter. This argument is also without merit. In Kuzara v. Kuzara (Mont. 1984), 682 P.2d 1371, 4 1 St.Rep. 1201, w e s t a t e d : "This Court has held t h a t a contempt proceeding i s e n t i r e l y independent o f t h e c i v i l a c t i o n o u t o f which it a r o s e . Myhre v. Myhre (1976) , 168 Mont. 521, 548 P.2d 1395. The D i s t r i c t Court t h e r e f o r e has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e n f o r c e i t s judgment even though an appeal i s pending thereon. Contempts a r e punishable because of t h e n e c e s s i t y o f maintaining t h e d i g n i t y o f and r e s p e c t towards t h e c o u r t s and t h e i r decrees." See a l s o , S t a t e e x rel. Bacorn v. District Court (1925), 73 Mont. 297, 236 P. 553; S t a t e e x rel. Enochs v. D i s t r i c t Court (1942), 113 Mont. 227, 123 P.2d 971; 17 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt, A s s t a t e d i n t h e above c a s e s , t h e power o f contempt is t o e n f o r c e t h e decorum o f t h e c o u r t , n o t t h e d i g n i t y o f any p a r t i c u l a r judge t h e r e o f . Thus, it does n o t m a t t e r t h a t Judge Henson had ceded j u r i s d i c t i o n over t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n t o Judge H o l t e r , because all. t h a t he was doing i n t h i s a c t i o n was e n f o r c i n g a lawful o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . F i n a l l y , r e l a t o r argues t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court exceeded i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n when it authorized an award o f a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o t h e D i s t r i c t . F i r s t , w e must n o t e t h a t a D i s t r i c t Court may p r o p e r l y award a p a r t y , i n t h i s c a s e t h e movant D i s t r i c t , c o s t s o f a l i t i g a t i o n under t h e a u t h o r i t y o f 25-10-103, MCA. P r i o r c a s e s have l i m i t e d t h e amount o f t h e s e c o s t s t o what can be taken o u t of t h e f i n e l e v i e d a g a i n s t t h e contemnor. See S t a t e e x rel. Nett v. D i s t r i c t Court (1925), 72 Mont. 206, 232 P. 204; S t a t e e x rel. Edwards v. D i s t r i c t Court (1910), 4 1 Mont. 369, 109 P. 434; Dunlavey v. Doggett (1909), 38 Mont. 204, 99 P. 436; S t a t e e x rel. Flynn v. D i s t r i c t Court (1900), 2 4 Mont. 33, 60 P. 493. The more d i f f i c u l t i n q u i r y i s whether a District Court may award t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " i n a contempt a c t i o n a t t o r - n e y ' s f e e s . W e f i r s t must note t h e unique n a t u r e of a contempt a c t i o n . I t i s t h e s t a t e ' s i n t e r e s t , and n o t an.y p r i v a t e p a r t y ' s , t h a t i s v i n d i c a t e d by t h e invocation o f t h i s power. A s we s t a t e d i n Dunlavey v. Doggett, supra.. "What we do hold is t h a t contempt pro- ceedings do n o t f u r n i s h a remedy a v a i l - a b l e t o t h e p l a i n t i f f f o r t h e r e d r e s s o r prevention o f a p r i v a t e wrong. While such proceedings may have t h e r e s u l t nf d e t e r r i n g t h e defendants from again i n t e r f e r i n g with p l a i n t i f f ' s r i g h t s , s t i l l t h e o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d i s t h e v i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i g n i t y o f t h e au- t h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t , and n o t indemnity f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r any judgment i n h i s favor. ( C i t a t i o n s omitted.) "Again, it i s urged t h a t because i n p r a c t i c e contempt proceedings a r e always i n s t i t u t e d a t t h e expense o f t h e owner o f t h e w a t e r , he i s t h e one p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d , and should be reimbursed f o r h i s expenditures i n connection t h e r e - with. I t i s undoubtedly t r u e t h a t many owners do f i n d themselves i n an unfortu- n a t e s i t u a t i o n when t h e i r water r i g h t s a r e v i o l a t e d ; b u t t h i s is a s u b j e c t f o r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o deal with." 38 Mont. a t 210, 99 P. a t 438. The g e n e r a l r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y i n an a c t i o n i s n o t e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s u n l e s s a s t a t u t o r y o r c o n t r a c t u a l p r o v i s i o n e x p r e s s l y provides f o r such, Cate v. Hargrave (Mont. 1984), 680 P.2d 952, 4 1 St.Rep. 697; Bovee v. Helland (1916), 52 Mont. 151, 155, 156 P.2d 416, 417. R e l a t o r c i t e s t o u s no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y upon which we may uphold t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award of a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . F u r t h e r , w e do n o t f i n d t h a t t h i s c a s e f i t s w i t h i n t h e exceptions recognized i n Foy v. Anderson (1978), 175 Mont. 507, 511, 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , 116 (upholding t h e c o u r t ' s g e n e r a l e q u i t y power t o a f f o r d complete r e l i e f ) ; Cate, supra (awarding a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s t o p e n a l i z e r e p r e h e n s i b l e s e l f - h e l p ) ; o r I n re Marriage o f Redfern (Mont. 1984), 692 P.2d 468, 4 1 St.Rep. 2391 ( a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s awarded i n contempt a c t i o n t o e n f o r c e t e r m s o f d i v o r c e d e c r e e ) . See a l s o ; Williams, ". . . and Attorneys Fees t o t h e P r e v a i l i n g Party: Recovering Attorneys Fees Under Montana Statutory Law," 46 Mont.L.Rev. 119, 121 (1985). The order of the District Court finding relator in contempt is hereby affirmed, and that portion of the order awarding attorney's fees to the Ward Irrigation District is hereby reversed. We concur: / 4 7 ~ ~ . ' Chief Justice 1