Title: STATE EX REL BUTTE YOUTH SER CENT

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 13136 I N T H E SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A 1976 STATE ex re1 BUTTE Y O U T H SERVICE CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, MICHAEL A. MURRAY, ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR OF SOUTHWESTERN M O N T A N A DRUG P R O G R A M , an AGENCY O F T H E STATE O F M O N T A N A , Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Second J u d i c i a l District, Honorable James D. Freebourn, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon 6 Robinson, Butte, Montana Urban L. Roth argued, Butte, Montana For Respondent: Stimatz and Engel, Butte, Montana Lawrence G. Stimatz argued, Butte, Montana Submitted: May 27, 1976 Decided: JUL - 1 1976 Filed: .I L) L 1 yTr5 M r . J u s t i c e Frank I. H a s w e l l delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , S i l v e r Bow County, granted plain- t i f f ' s p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandate. Defendant appeals from t h e d e n i a l of its motion t o quash t h e w r i t and f o r change of venue. P l a i n t i f f , Butte Youth Service Center, i s a nonprofit corporation providing room, board, and treatment f o r individ- u a l s i n a s t a t e drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program. Defendant is t h e administrative d i r e c t o r of/~outhwestern Montana Drug Program, t h e state agency operating t h e drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n program. The Youth Center was t o receive $7.50 per day per boy, l a t e r r a i s e d t o $10.34 per boy, from t h e Southwestern Montana Drug Program under c o n t r a c t s t o provide drug r e h a b i l i t a t i o n services. The funding was from a Federal grant. Subsequently t h e Southwestern Montana Drug Program discovered t h a t t h e Youth Center was a l s o receiving a foster-home g r a n t , $4.00 per day per boy, from Social and Rehabilitation Services, a s t a t e agency, which i n t u r n was receiving ~ e d e r a l funding. A d i s p u t e a r o s e a s t o whether t h i s c o n s t i t u t e d an i l l e g a l duplication of payment of Federal funds t o t h e Youth Center under Federal law. The Youth Center resolved t o determine t h i s d i s p u t e by requesting t h e administrative d i r e c t o r of t h e Southwestern Montana Drug Program t o apply f o r a waiver of t h e Federal pro- h i b i t i o n a g a i n s t payment of funds by two Federal agencies. When he refused, t h e Youth Center sought a w r i t of mandate command- ing him t o apply f o r t h e waiver provided i n 2 1 U.S.C. 5 1135, e n t i t l e d "Single non-Federal share requirements; waiver", pro- viding i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "Where funds a r e made a v a i l a b l e by more than one Federal agency t o be used by an agency, organization, o r individual t o c a r r y o u t a drug abuse prevention function, a s i n g l e non-Federal share requirement may be established according t o t h e proportion of funds advanced by each Federal agency, and t h e Director may order any such agency t o waive any technical g r a n t o r c o n t r a c t requirement established i n reg- u l a t i o n s which is inconsistent with t h e s i m i l a r re- quirement of t h e o t h e r Federal agency o r which t h e other Federal agency does n o t impose." (Emphasis added. ) The d i s t r i c t c o u r t granted an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t command- ing defendant to act o r show cause f o r h i s r e f u s a l . Upon r e c e i p t of t h e w r i t , defendant moved, with a b r i e f and a f f i d a v i t i n support: (1) t o quash t h e a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of mandate; (2) t o quash and dismiss t h e p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of mandate; and ( 3 ) t o change venue t o L e w i s and Clark County. After an adversary hearing on t h e motions, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied t h e motions and issued a w r i t of mandate. ~ e f e n d a n t appeals. The i s s u e s on appeal a r e - (1) whether t h e w r i t should have been issuediand ( 2 ) whether venue w a s properly i n S i l v e r Bow County o r Lewis and Clark County. A w r i t of mandate may be issued t o compel t h e performance of an a c t which t h e law s p e c i a l l y enjoins as a duty. Section 93-9102, R.C.M. 1947. However, t h e Youth Center has n o t present- ed any s t a t u t e o r regulation t h a t r e q u i r e s t h e S t a t e drug program t o apply f o r t h e waiver. Counsel f o r t h e Youth Center p o i n t s t o general assurances contained i n c o n t r a c t s between t h e S t a t e and Federal agencies t h a t t h e p o l i c i e s and regulations of t h e superior agency w i l l be followed under t h e c o n t r a c t s . Counsel points t o these assurances, which are not i n evidence and not a p a r t of t h e record, t o e s t a b l i s h a clear l e g a l duty on t h e p a r t of t h e S t a t e Drug Program t o apply f o r t h e waiver. Mandamus w i l l not l i e t o compel performance of a discre- t i o n a r y function. The Youth Center has not established a clear l e g a l duty t o apply f o r t h e waiver requested. F u r t h e r , i f t h e Youth Center i s r e l y i n g on a c o n t r a c t u a l o b l i g a t i o n t o e s t a b l i s h a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y , w e f a i l t o see why it does n o t have a remedy a t law f o r breach of c o n t r a c t o r i n e q u i t y f o r s p e c i f i c performance. Quoting from t h e b r i e f f o r t h e Youth Center (at page 7 ) : "Counsel f o r BYSC [Butte Youth S e r v i c e s Center] recognizes and a c c e p t s t h e f a c t t h a t a W r i t of Mandamus i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy and is o b t a i n a b l e only i n t h e s e r a r e cases wherein t h e r e is n o t any p l a i n , speedy and adequate remedy i n t h e o r d i n a r y course of law, and t h e r e - f o r e t h e a p p l i c a n t must d i s c l o s e t h e f a c t s which e s t a b l i s h h i s c l e a r l e g a l r i g h t t o t h e r e l i e f sought. S t a t e ex rel. Duggan v s . District Court, 65 Mont. 197, 199, 210 P. 1062." Y e t , counsel simply s t a t e s i n h i s b r i e f t h a t he does n o t have a remedy on t h e c o n t r a c t without explanation o r proof. Accordingly, d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o quash and d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n should have been granted. Our r u l i n g on t h i s i s s u e r e n d e r s review of t h e venue i s s u e unnecessary. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of d e f e n d a n t ' s motion t o quash and dismiss is reversed. P l a i n t i f f ' s a c t i o n i s hereby dismissed w i t h p r e j u d i c e . - J u s t i c e W e concur: B2rnard Thomas, District s i t t i n g i n p l a c e of M r . Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison.