Case Title: BAILEY v RAVALLI COUNTY

Citation: 

Docket Number: 81-542

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-11-02T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 81-542 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 BRUCE J. BAILEY and HELEN L. BAILEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, VS. RAVALLI COUNTY, et al., Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert B. Brown argued, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana For Respondents: Baldassin, Connell & Beers, Missoula, Montana Thomas J. Beers argued, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: William Bogqs argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: May 20, 1982 Decided: PToveinber 3, 1982 Filed: NSV 3 - 198% M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . T h i s a p p e a l arises from an a c t i o n f o r q u i e t t i t l e to one- h a l f of t h e roadway a d j o i n i n g lots owned by p l a i n t i f f s s e p a r a t e l y i n Sunnyside O r c h a r d s No. 3 , a p l a t t e d o r c h a r d tract i n R a v a l l i County, Montana. A f t e r t r i a l on June 8 , 1981, the D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t found t h e land i n q u e s t i o n had been abandoned and c l o s e d by t h e R a v a l l i County Commissioners i n 1944 and, as a r e s u l t , r e v e r t e d t o t h e a b u t t i n g owners, each r e c e i v i n g t o t h e c e n t e r of t h e f o r m e r l y p l a t t e d road. From t h a t judgment d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l . The p l a t of Sunnyside Orchards N o . 3 was f i l e d and recorded on October 1 6 , 1909. The s t a t u t o r y c e r t i f i c a t e of d e d i c a t i o n s t a t e d i n p a r t : "The land i n c l u d e d i n a l l s t r e e t s , avenues, a l l e y s , p a r k s and p u b l i c s q u a r e shown on s a i d p l a t are hereby g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e use of t h e p u b l i c f o r e v e r ." On A p r i l 5 , 1944, a p e t i t i o n f o r county road c l o s u r e w i t h twelve s i g n a t u r e s was f i l e d w i t h t h e R a v a l l i County C l e r k and Recorder. The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e c l o s u r e of e i g h t r o a d s , s i x o f which were p o r t i o n s of r o a d s i n Sunnyside O r c h a r d s sub- d i v i s i o n . One of t h o s e s i x , t h e p l a t t e d road between Blocks 1 0 and 1 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of Lot 30, Block 1 0 , and Lot 3 , Block 11, is t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a c t i o n . H. H. Benson, t h e county s u r - v e y o r , and J o e l P. Antrim, a county commissioner and one of t h e p e t i t i o n e r s , were a p p o i n t e d as viewers by t h e county commission on A p r i l 5 1 1944. The v i e w e r s q r e p o r t recommended c l o s i n g t h e r o a d s . T h i s r e p o r t w a s f i l e d with t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r May 4 , 1944, a f t e r having been accepted and ordered f i l e d by t h e commissioners May 3 , 1944. The Commissioners ' Minute Book r e c o r d e d t h e proceeding on May 3, 1944, w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g s t a t e m e n t : " ' W e f i n d t h e r o a d s a r e n o t being used as p u b l i c r o a d s and are not l i k e l y t o be used as s u c h , and c l o s i n g of s a i d r o a d s would n o t inconvenience t h e p u b l i c i n any d e g r e e . Theref o r e w e recommend t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d r o a d s be c l o s e d as p e t i t i o n e d f o r . Upon motion made and seconded r e p o r t was accepted and o r d e r e d f i l e d . " A f t e r 1944, n e i t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s nor t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t p a i d any t a x e s on any p o r t i o n of t h e roadway, and no p o r t i o n of t h e roadway was fenced i n t o t h e l a n d s now belonging to r e s p o n d e n t s u n t i l t h e s p r i n g or summer of 1980. On October 24, 1980, t h e Board of R a v a l l i County Commissioners d i r e c t e d removal of o b s t r u c t i o n s i n t h e roadway between Blocks 10 and 1 1 o f Sunnyside O r c h a r d s No. 3. Respondent B a i l e y had placed a f e n c e along t h e c e n t e r of the road p r i o r to t h e county commissioner's d i r e c t i v e . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s Court: 1. Whether a s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of l a n d s d e s i g n a t e d f o r s t r e e t s and a l l e y s i n a 1909 township creates a p u b l i c roadway? 2. Whether t h e p l a t t e d road i n Sunnyside O r c h a r d s N o . 3 between Blocks 10 and 1 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of Lot 30, Block 1 0 , and Lot 3 , Block 11, was c l o s e d and abandoned by t h e R a v a l l i County Commissioners on May 3 , 1944? 3 . I f s o , whether t h e land which made up t h a t road r e v e r t e d t o t h e a b u t t i n g owners each r e c e i v i n g to t h e c e n t e r l i n e of t h e f o r m e r l y p l a t t e d r o a d ? 4. Whether a subsequent p u r c h a s e r of land a d j o i n i n g a dedi- c a t e d roadway, where t h e purchase does not i n c l u d e any p o r t i o n of t h e roadway, a c q u i r e s any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n i f the roadway h a s been c l o s e d ? 5. Whether t h e p l a i n t i f f s are e n t i t l e d t o a d e c r e e q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n them t o t h e l a n d s , under claim of a c q u i s i t i o n by opera- t i o n of t h e l a w , w i t h o u t payment of t a x e s or being i n p o s s e s s i o n of t h e premises f o r t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d of t i m e ? 6 . Whether R a v a l l i County should be o r d e r e d to pay r e s p o n d e n t s 1 a t t o r n e y f e e s ? Did t h e s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of l a n d s d e s i g n a t e d f o r streets and a l l e y s i n t h e 1909 p l a t create a p u b l i c highway? I n o u r a n a l y s i s of t h e c o n t r o l l i n g s t a t u t e s d u r i n g t h e p e r i o d s h e r e i n v o l v e d , w e emphasize t h a t t h e r e h a s been c o n s t a n t and c o n t i n u o u s amendment and m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u - tes p e r t a i n i n g to streets, r o a d s and highways from t h e 1895 code on down through to t h e p r e s e n t . I t t h e r e f o r e becomes c r i t i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e s t a t u t e s as a c t u a l l y i n e f f e c t a t any s p e c i f i c d a t e . A s p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , t h e 1909 c e r t i f i c a t e of d e d i c a t i o n i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e d : "The land included i n a l l streets, avenues, a l l e y s , . . . shown on s a i d p l a t are hereby g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e use of t h e p u b l i c f o r e v e r . " I n t h e making of t h i s p l a t , t h e owners complied w i t h S e c t i o n 3470, Revised Codes of Montana 1907, which had been i n e f f e c t s i n c e a t l e a s t 1895. I n a d d i t i o n , s e c t i o n 3475, Revised Codes o f Montana 1907, as a l s o i n e f f e c t s i n c e 1895, provided i n per- t i n e n t p a r t : "Every . . . g r a n t to t h e p u b l i c . . . marked or noted as such on t h e p l a t of t h e c i t y or town, o r a d d i t i o n , must be c o n s i d e r e d , to a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s , a s a deed t o t h e s a i d donee." W e , t h e r e f o r e , f i n d t h a t t h e r e was compliance w i t h t h e 1907 c o d e s i n t h e making of t h e d e d i c a t i o n , and t h a t such d e d i c a t i o n must be c o n s i d e r e d as a deed to t h e p u b l i c . The e f f e c t of t h a t d e d i c a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1337, Revised Codes of Montana 1907 , which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t states : " A l l highways, r o a d s , streets, a l l e y s , . . . l a i d o u t . . . b y t h e p u b l i c . . ., or i f l a i d o u t or e r e c t e d by o t h e r s , d e d i c a t e d or aban- doned to t h e p u b l i c , . . . are p u b l i c high- ways. " The f o r e g o i n g s e c t i o n w a s enacted as a p a r t of c h a p t e r 44 o f t h e 1903 S e s s i o n Laws. I n a d d i t i o n , i n t h e same s e s s i o n l a w s , sec- t i o n 1342, Revised Codes of Montana 1907, was enacted which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e d : "By t a k i n g or a c c e p t i n g land f o r a highway t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e o n l y t h e r i g h t of way and t h e i n c i d e n t s n e c e s s a r y to e n j o y i n g and main- t a i n i n g t h e same . . ." We, t h e r e f o r e , conclude t h a t by t h e d e d i c a t i o n , t h e roadway or street h e r e i n q u e s t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d by t h e 1907 c o d e s a s being a " p u b l i c highway." I n a d d i t i o n , we hold t h a t i n accordance w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s , t h e p l a t d e d i c a t i o n to t h e p u b l i c was t h e equiva- l e n t of a right-of-way deed under which t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e d o n l y t h e right-of-way and i n c i d e n t s n e c e s s a r y to e n j o y i n g and main- t a i n i n g t h e p u b l i c highway. W e , t h e r e f o r e , hold t h a t t h e dedica- t i o n d i d create a p u b l i c roadway o r highway i n 1909. Was t h e p l a t t e d road c l o s e d and abandoned by t h e R a v a l l i County Commissioners on May 3 , 1944? S e c t i o n 1635, R.C.M. 1935, p r o v i d e s t h a t t e n , or a m a j o r i t y of t h e f r e e h o l d e r s of a road d i s t r i c t , may p e t i t i o n , i n w r i t i n g , t h e Board of County Commissioners to d i s c o n t i n u e any p u b l i c high- way. The r e c o r d h e r e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t such a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . S e c t i o n 1637, R.C.M. 1935, d e s c r i b e s t h e procedure t o be followed on i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e f e a s i b i l i t y and d e s i r a b i l i t y of g r a n t i n g t h e p r a y e r of t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t is n o t p e r t i n e n t h e r e . S e c t i o n 1638, R.C.M. 1935, is t h e s e c t i o n which d e s c r i b e s t h e a c t i o n t o be t a k e n by t h e commissioners on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r vaca- t i o n and i n p e r t i n e n t part states: " A f t e r t h e commissioners s h a l l have c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n , provided t h a t not more t h a n one member of t h e board of county commissioners and t h e county s u r v e y o r s h a l l act as viewers i n making t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y s h a l l make a n e n t r y on t h e i r minutes af t h e i r d e c i s i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o , and cause n o t i c e of t h e i r a c t i o n on s a i d p e t i t i o n to be s e n t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and to a l l landowners as d i s c l o s e d by t h e l a s t assessment r o l l s of t h e county, owning land a b u t t i n g t h e roadway proposed to be . . . d i s c o n t i n u e d ." A s p r e v i o u s l y d e s c r i b e d , t h e county commissioners complied w i t h t h i s s e c t i o n . They determined t h a t t h e r o a d s were not being used as p u b l i c r o a d s and c l o s i n g t h e same would n o t inconvenience t h e p u b l i c and concluded and recommended t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d r o a d s be c l o s e d as p e t i t i o n e d f o r . These a c t i o n s are s u f f i c i e n t to c o n s t i t u t e an e n t r y of t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e county commissioners i n t h e i r minutes as r e q u i r e d under t h e code s e c t i o n . With r e g a r d to n o t i c e of t h e i r a c t i o n , s e c t i o n 1638 d o e s r e q u i r e t h a t n o t i c e be s e n t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and to a l l landowners owning land a b u t t i n g t h e roadway, b u t o n l y a f t e r t h e abandonment. The record does not p o s i t i v e l y d i s c l o s e t h a t such n o t i c e w a s g i v e n . However, we f i n d t h a t any q u e s t i o n which could be r a i s e d i n t h a t regard is answered by s e c t i o n 1651, R.C.M. 1935, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t states: "None of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be i n v a l i d by r e a s o n of any d e f e c t , i n f o r m a l i t y or i r r e g u l a r i t y t h e r e i n which does n o t . . . p r e j u d i c e t h e s u b s t a n t i a l r i g h t s of p r o p e r t y owners immediately concerned. " A s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 1638, t h e power of t h e commissioners to v a c a t e was n o t dependent upon t h e g i v i n g of n o t i c e to e i t h e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s o r a b u t t i n g landowners. The purpose o b v i o u s l y was to g i v e an o p p o r t u n i t y on t h e p a r t of such p a r t i e s to o b j e c t a f t e r t h e abandonment, should t h e y choose t o do so. The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t a t no time s i n c e abandonment i n 1944 have t h e r o a d s i n q u e s t i o n been used f o r street and road purposes. I n t h e absence of any q u e s t i o n being r a i s e d by a b u t t i n g landowners or p e t i - t i o n e r s i n t h e subsequent p e r i o d of more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s , we conclude t h a t t h e p r o c e e d i n g s cannot now be q u e s t i o n e d . W e do have an a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 1614, R.C.M. 1935, which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t states: " A l l p u b l i c highways once e s t a b l i s h e d must c o n t i n u e to be p u b l i c highways u n t i l aban- doned by o p e r a t i o n of l a w , . . . o r by t h e o r d e r of t h e Board of County Commissioners of t h e county i n which they are s i t u a t e d ; b u t no o r d e r to abandon any highway s h a l l be v a l i d u n l e s s preceded by due n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as provided i n t h i s act; . . ." (Emphasis added. ) On its f a c e , t h i s code s e c t i o n , which was i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e o f abandonment, a p p e a r s t o r e q u i r e due n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g p r i o r - - t o t h e o r d e r of abandonment. A s we review t h e h i s t o r y of t h i s s e c t i o n , w e f i n d t h a t it was a p a r t of " t h e General Highway Law" a s e n a c t e d i n Chapter 7 2 of t h e 1913 S e s s i o n Laws. C h a p t e r 7 2 , c o n t a i n e d v a r i o u s p r o v i s i o n s w i t h regard to t h e procedure to be followed upon c r e a t i n g o r abandoning highways, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n d i c a t e d a requirement t h a t c e r t a i n r e p o r t s are r e q u i r e d , n o t i c e of a d a t e of h e a r i n g is r e q u i r e d , and a h e a r i n g r e q u i r e d p r i o r to a c t i o n . However, t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g n o t ice and h e a r i n g a s set f o r t h i n t h e 1913 law were e l i m i n a t e d by subsequent amend- ments to t h e highway laws. The r e s u l t was t h a t i n 1944, we have t h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t of s e c t i o n 1614 t h a t an o r d e r t o abandon s h a l l n o t be v a l i d u n l e s s preceded by due n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as " p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a c t , " and t h e 1935 c o d e s d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r s u c h n o t i c e and h e a r i n g . W e , t h e r e f o r e , conclude t h a t t h e provi- s i o n f o r due n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1614, R.C.M. 1935, had been e l i m i n a t e d by subsequent amendments. A s a r e s u l t , we have concluded t h a t no p r i o r n o t i c e and h e a r i n g was r e q u i r e d , and t h a t t h e procedure followed by t h e county com- m i s s i o n e r s i n 1944 d i d comply w i t h t h e code s e c t i o n s as t h e n i n e f f e c t . A p p e l l a n t s n e x t argue t h a t even i f t h e road w a s c l o s e d by t h e county commissioners' a c t i o n , t i t l e to t h e roadway does not v e s t i n t h e a d j o i n i n g landowners b u t remains i n t h e p u b l i c u n a f f e c t e d by t h e d i s c o n t i n u a n c e . A s s t a t e d above, t h e i n t e r e s t t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e d by t h e o r i g i n a l d e d i c a t i o n had t h e e f f e c t of an easement f o r road p u r p o s e , n o t a f e e simple t r a n s f e r . S e c t i o n 70-17-101, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "The f o l l o w i n g l a n d burdens or s e r v i t u d e s upon land may be a t t a c h e d to o t h e r land as i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s and are t h e n c a l l e d easements: " ( 4 ) t h e right-of-way;" The g r a n t of an easement is t h e g r a n t of a use and n o t a g r a n t of t i t l e t o t h e l a n d . B o l i n g e r v. C i t y of Bozeman ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 158 Mont. 507, 493 P.2d 1062. A s t h e o r i g i n a l d e d i c a t i o n w a s o n l y a g r a n t of use and n o t one of t i t l e , t i t l e was n e v e r v e s t e d i n t h e p u b l i c . S i n c e t i t l e was not v e s t e d i n t h e p u b l i c a t any t i m e , t h e r e was no t i t l e which can be s a i d to now remain w i t h t h e p u b l i c . A highway which is l a w f u l l y vacated or abandoned ceases to be a highway and, i n s o f a r as t h e p u b l i c h a s a mere easement of way, t h e t i t l e r e v e r t s t o t h e owners of t h e f e e d i s c h a r g e d from t h e s e r v i t u d e . 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, 5 142 a t 514. T h i s Court chooses t o f o l l o w t h e r u l e adopted i n a number of states and w a s s t a t e d i n t h e Oregon case of P o r t l a n d B a s e b a l l Club v. C i t y of P o r t l a n d ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 4 2 O r . 1 3 , 1 8 P.2d 811, 812: " [wlhere land h a s been d e d i c a t e d o r a p p r o p r i a t e d f o r a p u b l i c street, t h e f e e i n t h e s t r e e t remains i n t h e o r i g i n a l owner sub- ject o n l y to t h e p u b l i c easement, and, upon t h e v a c a t i o n of t h e s t r e e t , it r e v e r t s t o t h e owner of t h e a b u t t i n g premises f r e e d from t h e easement." T h e r e f o r e , we hold upon abandonment t h a t t h e f e e i n t h e street r e v e r t s to t h e a b u t t i n g landowners, w i t h each a b u t t i n g landowner t a k i n g f e e from t h e edge of h i s or h e r p r o p e r t y to t h e c e n t e r of t h e street. A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r argue t h a t a subsequent p u r c h a s e r of land ad j o i n i n g a d e d i c a t e d roadway, where t h e purchase d o e s n o t i n c l u d e any p o r t i o n of t h e roadway, d o e s not a c q u i r e any i n t e r e s t t h e r e i n i f t h e roadway has been c l o s e d . S e c t i o n 70-16-202, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "An owner of land bounded by a road or street is pre- sumed to own to t h e c e n t e r t h e r e o f , b u t t h e c o n t r a r y may be shown." S e c t i o n 70-20-307, MCA, p r o v i d e s : "A t r a n s f e r of land bounded by a highway p a s s e s t h e t i t l e of t h e person whose estate is t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e s o i l of t h e highway i n f r o n t of t h e c e n t e r t h e r e o f u n l e s s a d i f f e r e n t i n t e n t a p p e a r s from t h e g r a n t . " I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e above-named s t a t u t e s , t h i s Court adopted t h e m i n o r i t y r u l e t h a t a boundary to and w i t h t h e s i d e of a street c a r r i e s t h e f e e to t h e c e n t e r of t h e street u n l e s s t h e c o n t r a r y i n t e n t a p p e a r s from t h e deed. McPherson v. Monegan ( 1 9 4 7 ) r 120 Mont. 454, 187 P.2d 542. W e quoted from S a l t e r v. J o n a s , 39 N . J . L . 469, 470, 23 Am.Rep. 229: ". . . I n o u r p r a c t i c e , i n t h e conveyance of lots bounded by streets, t h e p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f is t h a t t h e street to its c e n t r e is conveyed w i t h t h e l o t . Among t h e mass of people it is undoubtedly supposed t h a t t h e street belongs as an a p p u r t e n a n c e , to t h e c o n t i g u o u s pro- p e r t y , and t h a t t h e t i t l e to t h e l a t t e r carries w i t h it a t i t l e to t h e former. . ." A s p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t a r g u e t h a t t h e y are e n t i t l e d to a d e c r e e q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n them under a c l a i m of a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n , w e w i l l not comment upon t h a t i s s u e . Respondent asks t h a t a p p e l l a n t be ordered to pay r e s p o n d e n t ' s a t t o r n e y f e e s . Where t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e ground f o r a p p e a l , a r e s p o n d e n t is not e n t i t l e d to r e c o v e r damages under Rule 32, M.R.App.Civ.P. Erdman v. C & C S a l e s , I n c . ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 176 Mont. 177, 184, 577 P.2d 55, 59. Here, t h e ownership of t h e land was r e a s o n a b l y i n i s s u e , and t h e r e s p o n d e n t ' s r e q u e s t f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s on a p p e a l must be denied. Af f irmed .