Title: STOUT v REITER

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

No. 14540 I N THE SUPREME C O W O F THE STATE O F IJDJWANA 1979 EmmFa G. m u r and B O N I T A L. mur, Plaintiffs and Respondents, HEXMAN R E m and DOREESJ 0. R E m , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal £ran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, Honorable Iiobert Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: muat and Martinson, Billings, Wntana William G. Wt argued, Billings, bbntana For Respondents: Moulton, Bellingham, mngo and Mather, Billings, IWntana R. H. Bellingham argued, Billings, IWntana Wrruw, Sedivy and Olsen, Bozeman, mntana Jams H. IWrrm argued, Bozeman, bbntana Submitted: March 20, 1979 Decided: MAY 3 0 1979 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. P l a i n t i f f s , t h e S t o u t s , brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t , Yellow- s t o n e County, t o e n j o i n defendants, t h e R e i t e r s , from using c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s and from e n t e r i n g upon p l a i n - t i f f s ' property f o r t h e purpose of using t h e d i t c h e s . Defendants counterclaimed seeking t o e n j o i n p l a i n t i f f s from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h defendants' r i g h t t o u s e t h e d i t c h e s . The case, which was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e Honorable Robert H. Wilson s i t t i n g without a jury, r e s u l t e d i n a n o r d e r p e r p e t u a l l y e n j o i n i n g defendants from using t h e d i s p u t e d i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s . Defendants appeal from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r . The c a s e a r o s e because of a disagreement over t h e meaning of t h e language used i n a warranty deed t o r e s e r v e a n easement f o r defendants when they s o l d a p a r c e l of land t o p l a i n t i f f s ' predecessors. The d i s p u t e d language r e a d s : ". . . r e s e r v i n g an easement 8 f e e t i n width f o r t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , a s now l o c a t e d , running from t h e Yellowstone River on t h e W e s t t o t h e E a s t l i n e of s a i d t r a c t f o r t h e purpose of i r r i g a t i n g p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North and E a s t of s a i d t r a c t . . ." I n 1965 t h e land p r e s e n t l y owned by p l a i n t i f f s and defendants was e n t i r e l y owned by Leland McMorris. A t t h a t t i m e , William Neibauer, a r e a l t o r , e f f e c t e d an agreement whereby defendants purchased t h e e n t i r e t r a c t from McMorris and simultaneously s o l d a f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l , s u b j e c t t o t h e r e s e r v a t i o n of c e r t a i n easements, t o Donald and Grace Underwood by a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. The f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l , now d e s c r i b e d a s T r a c t 1, C e r t i f i c a t e of Survey #991, i s l o c a t e d along t h e Yellowstone River and c o n t a i n s a number of i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s which have been used s i n c e 1965 t o ir- r i g a t e defendants' a d j o i n i n g property. The pump shown i n t h i s diagram of t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l i s located i n a channel of t h e r i v e r and pumps water i n t o t h e e n t i r e d i t c h system. A t t h e t i m e defendants sold t h e f i f t e e n a c r e t r a c t t o t h e Underwoods, t h e r e was a d i t c h running d i r e c t l y from t h e pump t o t h e e a s t e r n boundary of t h e t r a c t . Shortly a f t e r t h e Underwoods and defendants completed t h e i r t r a n s a c t i o n , t h i s d i t c h was plowed under and a new d i t c h w a s dug t o t h e south. I t now forms t h e southern p o r t i o n of Ditch No. 6. I n essence, defendants p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e r e is s u b s t a n t i a l evidence t o support t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s order enjoining defendants from using a c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h with connecting l a t e r a l s , ease- ments f o r which a r e claimed by defendants t o have been r e - served i n them i n a c o n t r a c t f o r deed and warranty deed. 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court had a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t an i n j u n c t i o n i n a case of disputed t i t l e o r r i g h t before determination of t h e t i t l e o r r i g h t i n an a c t i o n a t law. Counsel f o r t h e Yellowstone County Farm Bureau and t h e Montana Farm Bureau Federation appeared on appeal a s amicus c u r i a e arguing t h a t t h e primary i s s u e on appeal should be whether defendants own t h e d i t c h r i g h t s a s they e x i s t e d a t t h e t i m e of t h e i r f i f t e e n a c r e t r a n s a c t i o n with p l a i n t i f f s ' predecessor. Addressing t h i s l a t t e r argument f i r s t , w e note t h a t t h e argument assumes t h a t p r i o r t o 1965 t h e d i t c h system c o n s t i - t u t e d a s e r v i t u d e upon t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l and an appur- tenance t o t h e land now owned by defendants. Along t h e s e l i n e s , s e c t i o n 67-601, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-101 MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : "The following land burdens, o r s e r v i t u d e s upon land, may be attached t o o t h e r land a s i n c i d e n t s o r appurtenances, and a r e then c a l l e d easements: " (11) The r i g h t of having water flow with- o u t diminution o r disturbance of any kind." However, s e c t i o n 67-611, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-111 MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t : "A s e r v i t u d e is extinguished: "1. By t h e v e s t i n g of t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i - tude and t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i e n t tenement i n t h e same person;" It i s apparent, then, t h a t t h e d i t c h system could n o t have been an appurtenance t o defendants' land p r i o r t o 1965 be- cause t h e dominant and s e r v i e n t tenements w e r e p a r t of t h e same p a r c e l . The easement i n t h i s c a s e was c r e a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e p a r c e l s w e r e separated, and w e must look t o t h e language of t h e instrument which c r e a t e d t h e easement t o determine what it includes. The complete r e s e r v a t i o n found i n t h e warranty deed reads a s follows: ". . . reserving, however, t o t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t , t h e i r h e i r s and a s s i g n s , an easement 30 feet i n width f o r a roadway, a s t h e same now e x i s t s , running North and South approximately through t h e middle of t h e s a i d t r a c t f o r t h e purpose of access t o property owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North of s a i d t r a c t ; and reserving an easement - - - 8 f e e t i n width -- f o r t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , -- as now located, running --- from t h e Y e l - lowstone River on t h e West t o t h e E a s t l i n e - - - - - - - of -- s a i d t r a c t -- f o r t h e purpose of i r r i g a t i n g property owned a t h e p a r t i e s of the f i r s t -- p a r t l y i n g -- t o t h e North and E a s t of s a i d ---- t r a c t ; and a l s o reserving an easement f o r t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e pump which pumps t h e water from t h e Yellowstone River i n t o s a i d d i t c h and f o r i n g r e s s and egress t h e r e t o as necessary and f o r s e r v i c i n g and r e p a i r s , a l s o known a s T r a c t No. 1 of C e r t i f i c a t e of Survey No. 991." (Emphasis added.) Defendants argue t h a t t h e d i t c h r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e war- r a n t y deed and t h e c o n t r a c t f o r deed i s t h e d i t c h running north and south. They argue t h a t t h i s i s a main d i t c h o r "dike" d i t c h and t h a t t h e t e r m " d i t c h " a s used i n t h e deed includes t h e e n t i r e d i t c h system, including t h e l a t e r a l d i t c h e s . I n proposing t h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , they seek t o p l a c e g r e a t s i g n i f i c a n c e on t h e phrase " f o r t h e purpose of i r r i g a t i n g p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North and E a s t of s a i d t r a c t . " They contend t h a t t h e one d i t c h , now plowed under, would n o t be s u f f i - c i e n t t o i r r i g a t e a l l of defendants' land. Testimony adduced a t t r i a l s u g g e s t s , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t found, t h a t defendants s o l d t h e land w i t h t h e apparent i n t e n t i o n of b u i l d i n g a new north/south d i t c h on t h e i r p r o p e r t y which would have been f e d by t h e d i t c h they ex- p r e s s l y reserved. They postponed b u i l d i n g a new d i t c h because they r e c e i v e d permission t o u s e t h e e n t i r e d i t c h system from t h e Underwoods i n r e t u r n f o r i r r i g a t i n g t h e Underwoods' property. "This Court w i l l n o t r e v e r s e t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t u n l e s s t h e r e i s a c l e a r pre- ponderance of t h e evidence a g a i n s t such f i n d i n g s . " Schulz v. Peake (1978), Mont. , 583 P.2d 425, 430, 35 St.Rep. 1295, 1302. Here t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s a r e adequately supported by t h e evidence. S i n c e t h e i s s u e concerning t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s of t h e remedy o r t h e theory on which t h e c a s e was t r i e d was n o t r a i s e d i n t h e lower c o u r t , it should n o t be considered on appeal. Kearns v. McIntyre Const. Co. (1977), Mont . , 567 P.2d 433, 440, 34 St.3ep. 703, 712. Defendants - acquiesced t o t h e i n j u n c t i o n theory by counterclaiming f o r a n i n j u n c t i o n and reformation of t h e c o n t r a c t . The ~ i s t r i c t Court decided t h e i s s u e s on t h e theory adopted by both p a r t i e s . " . . . [Wlhen a p a r t y has adopted one theory upon t h e t r i a l of h i s c a s e , h e may n o t change t h e theory on appeal. ( C i t a t i o n o m i t t e d . ) " O'Hanlon v. Ruby Gulch Min. Co. (1922), 6 4 Mont. 318, 326, 209 P. 1062, 1064. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: Judge, s i t t i n g i n p l a c e df M r . Chief J u s t i c e Haswell. % \ \