Title: MONTANA POWER CO v CAREY

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 84-529 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 THE MONTANA POWER COPIPANY, A Montana corporation, Plaintiff, MARTIN CAREY, WALT DUTTON , JESSIE S . FELSHEIM, SUSMTPJE L . HUCKABA, MARY LEAVITT, et al. Defendants and Appellants, and IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL WATER USE PERMIT NO. 24921-s41e by REMI & BETTY JO MONFORTOW, Petitioners and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Eonorable W . W . Lessley, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: W . William Leaphart argued for Buckaba & Felsheim, Helena, Montana John R . Kline, Helena, Montana For Respondents: P4oore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling; Perry J. Moore argued for Monfortons, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman; R. Paul Stahl argued for Montana Power, Helena, PIontana Ted Doney, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 17, 1985 Decided: June 6, 1985 - Clerk M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from an o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, i n and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k , which d e n i e d a t t o r n e y f e e s t o Susanne Huckaba and Jessie S. Felsheim, a p p e l l a n t s , under s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA. R e m i and B e t t y J o Monforton ( h e r e i n a f t e r Monfortons) a p p l i e d t o t h e Department o f N a t u r a l Resources and Conserva- t i o n ( h e r e i n a f t e r DNRC) f o r a w a t e r u s e p e r m i t t o a p p r o p r i a t e w a t e r f r o m Cold S p r i n g s , a t r i b u t a r y o f t h e Boulder R i v e r . The Montana Power Company ( h e r e i n a f t e r MPC) and a p p e l l a n t s , f i l e d o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n . O n March 1, 1982, f o l l o w i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g where a p p e l l a n t s and a l l o b j e c t o r s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d , t h e DNRC i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n e d upon s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s . I n A p r i l , 1982, t h e Monfortons f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l review o f t h e D N R C ' s f i n a l o r d e r and s o u g h t t o remove t h e c o n d i t i o n s on t h e p e r m i t . Likewise, MPC, an o b j e c t o r t o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n , f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r judic.ia1 review o f t h e DNRC's f i n a l o r d e r . The p e t i t i o n s A'F~Y.E~ c o n s o l i d a t e d . Following a h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n s , t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l e d t h a t t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s and o t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t s p l a c e d upon t h e Monforton p e r m i t by t h e D N R C s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d t h e Monfortons' r i g h t t o a p p r o p r i a t e w a t e r . The District Court imposed a t t o r n e y f e e s upon M P C and a p p e l l a n t s . The a p p e l l a n t s and M P C appealed t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e c i s i o n t o t h i s Court. I n Montana Power Company v. Carey (Mont. 19841, 685 P.2d 336, 4 1 St.Rep. 1233, t h e D i s t r i c t Court o r d e r was r e v e r s e d and t h e DNRC o r d e r was r e i n s t a t e d . A s t o a t t o r n e y f e e s , t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e Monfortons were n o t t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " and t h u s , w e r e n o t e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . The a p p e l l a n t s t h e n p e t i t i o n e d t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i n t h e i r favor contending t h a t t h e y , r a t h e r than t h e Monfortons, were t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " under s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA. Appellants' p e t i t i o n was denied by t h e D i s t r i c t Court. O n a p p e a l , w a r e concerned w i t h one i s s u e . Whether a p p e l l a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA. The a p p e l l a n t s maintain because t h e Monfortons' claim f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s was denied i n Montana Power Company v. Carey, supra, 685 P.2d a t 341, t h e Monfortons w e r e n o t t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y . " Moreover, because t h e Montana Supreme Court r u l e d i n t h e i r f a v o r by r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t Court r u l i n g which increased t h e water r i g h t a p p l i c a t i o n , appel- l a n t s submit t h a t t h e y u l t i m a t e l y p r e v a i l e d i n t h i s m a t t e r and t h e r e f o r e were e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . The q u e s t i o n regarding a t t o r n e y f e e s was f u l l y considered, determined and adjudged i n Montana Power Company v. Carey, supra. The f i n a l paragraph i n t h a t d e c i s i o n s t a t e d : "In conjunction with t h i s r u l i n g , t h e Monforton's [ s i c ] claim f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s must be denied. Since t h e f i n a l o r d e r o f t h e DNRC i s a f f i r m e d , t h e Monfortons a r e n o t t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and cannot recover a t t o r n e y f e e s from t h e respondents." Montana Power Company v. Carey, 685 P.2d a t 341. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n was reversed. WE! hold w i t h t h i s a c t i o n , every i s s u e i n c l u d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was determined. The judgment o f t h i s Court i s conclusive. It a p p l i e s t o a l l subsequent s t a g e s of t h e cause i n c l u d i n g a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . C e n t r a l Montana Stockyards v. F r a s e r (1957), 133 Mont. 168, 320 P.2d 981; Brennan v. Jones (1936), 1 0 1 Mont. 550, 5 5 P.2d 697; I n Re S m i t h ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 Mont. 276, 199 P. 696. The Montana Power Company, a p p e a r i n g a s a m i c u s c u r i a e a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . T h i s C o u r t w i l l n o t e n t e r t a i n i s s u e s o n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f a s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n when s u c h i s s u e s are n o t r a i s e d b y t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . " S i n c e a m i c i c u r i a e a r e n o t p a r t i e s and c a n n o t assume t h e f u n c t i o n s o f p a r t i e s , n o r c r e a t e , e x t e n d o r e n l a r g e i s s u e s , w e h a v e c o n s i d e r e d t h e b r i e f s o f a m i c i o n l y i n s o f a r a s t h e y c o i n c i d e w i t h t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d b y t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . S e e Long v. O ' D e l l ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 60 Wash.2d. 1 5 1 , 372 P.2d 548; C i t y of P h o e n i x v. P h o e n i x C i v i c Aud. and Con. C e n t . A s s ' n . ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 99 A r i z . 270, 408 P.2d 8 1 8 , r e h . den. 100 A r i z . 1 0 1 , 412 P.2d 43." Montana W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v. S a g e r (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 620 P.2d 1 1 8 9 , 37 St.Rep. 1897. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e c o n c u r : /