Title: BD OF COUNTY COMM RS v FOURTH JUD

State: montana

Issuer: Montana Supreme Court

Document:

N o . 8 2 - 2 8 5 I N T H E S U P R E M E C O U R T O F T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA 1 9 8 3 T H E BOARD O F COUNTY C O M M I S S I O N E R S O F R A V A L L I C O U N T Y , MONTANA, P e t i t i o n e r , vs. T H E D I S T R I C T C O U R T O F T H E F O U R T H J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T , e t a l . , R e s p o n d e n t s . O R I G I N A L P R O C E E D I N G : C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : F o r P e t i t i o n e r : R o b e r t B r o w n , C o u n t y A t t o r n e y , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : J o h n W . R o b i n s o n , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a K o c h , M c K e n n a & G o h e e n , H a m i l t o n , M o n t a n a F i l e d : r t tj 2 4 '983 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 c t i o n is b e f o r e t h i s Court on a w r i t of review by t h e R a v a l l i County commissioners. The commissioners were h e l d i n contempt by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Fourth J u d i c i a l District f o r v i o l a t i n g an o r d e r i s s u e d i n a c i v i l a c t i o n e n t i t l e d D e l b e r t Carter, e t a l . v . A r t h u r J. Hoiland, et a l . , number DV-79-430, f i l e d i n R a v a l l i County. The s o u r c e of t h e s e p r o c e e d i n g s is a d e d i c a t e d road r i g h t - o f - way i n Mountain V i e w Orchards d e s c r i b e d as a f i f t y - f o o t s t r i p of l a n d running east and w e s t between Blocks 7 and 1 0 , Mountain V i e w O r c h a r d s , S e c t i o n 1 4 , Township 7 North, Range 20 West. On J u l y 3 0 , 1979, f i f t e e n landowners f i l e d a p e t i t i o n to v a c a t e t h e r i g h t - o f -way w i t h t h e R a v a l l i County commissioners. The p e t i t i o n a s k e d t h a t t h e d e d i c a t e d , b u t n o t y e t opened r o a d , be abandoned. On August 7, 1979, t h i r t e e n landowners f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r remo- v a l of road o b s t r u c t i o n s . The p e t i t i o n asked t h e d e d i c a t e d right-of-way be opened and t h a t a road be c o n s t r u c t e d i n accor- dance w i t h t h e o r i g i n a l p l a t . On August 9 , 1979, t h e minutes of t h e commissioners' meeting r e f l e c t t h e two p e t i t i o n s were d i s c u s s e d and t h e commissioners d e c i d e d n o t t o t a k e a c t i o n on e i t h e r p e t i t i o n , concluding t h e y were i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t w i t h each o t h e r . On September 1 0 , 1979, t h e commissioners i s s u e d a memorandum a g a i n s t a t i n g t h e y were n o t g o i n g t o act on e i t h e r p e t i t i o n . On November 7 , 1979, t h e Carters f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t i n D i s t r i c t Court s e e k i n g to e n j o i n any o b s t r u c t i o n of t h e u s e of t h e above-mentioned d e d i c a t e d r i g h t - o f -way. Defendants i n t h e a c t i o n a p p e a r t o be i n d i v i d u a l s who own land n e a r o r a d j a c e n t to t h e right-of-way. A l l p a r t i e s moved f o r summary judgment and on J u n e 1 2 , 1981, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s t motion f o r summary judgment. Defendants t h e n f i l e d a motion i n a i d of judgment s e e k i n g c l a r i f i c a t i o n of t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r . On August 1 3 , 1981, t h e District Court i s s u e d a second o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e commissioners a u t h o r i t y to do one of t w o t h i n g s : r e t a i n t h e s u b j e c t land i n t r u s t f o r t h e p u b l i c , o r r e t u r n t h e l a n d to t h e g r a n t o r s . The District Court f u r t h e r o r d e r e d t h a t t h e commissioners d i d n o t have d i s c r e t i o n to "do any o t h e r t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g opening t h e land ." On O c t o b e r 30, 1981, t h e commissioners i s s u e d an o r d e r pur- s u a n t t o t h e o r d e r of t h e District Court g r a n t i n g d e f e n d a n t s ' motion f o r summary judgment e n t e r e d J u n e 1 2 , 1981. The commissioners ' o r d e r s t a t e d : t h e d e d i c a t e d roadway had been i n s p e c t e d by Commissioners Frank W i l l i a m s and County Surveyor L a r r y Higginbotham and t h e r e p o r t of t h e i n s p e c t i o n was f i l e d on J u n e 29, 1981; n o t i c e was g i v e n to t h e a d j o i n i n g landowners by c e r t i f i e d mail and to t h e p u b l i c by p u b l i c a t i o n ; a n d , a p u b l i c h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n s was h e l d on August 4 , 1981. The com- m i s s i o n e r s e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and o r d e r e d : t h e p e t i t i o n f o r v a c a t i o n of t h e roadway is denied ; any encroachments t h a t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e unencumbered use of t h e l a n d s by t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c be removed; any use of t h e p r e m i s e s s h a l l be n o n e x l u s i v e and s h a l l not i n t e r f e r e with t h e use by any o t h e r p e r s o n ; and t h e p r o p e r t y s h a l l be h e l d i n t r u s t f o r t h e p u b l i c by t h e Board of County Commissioners f o r f u t u r e develop- ment f o r t h e b e n e f i t of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c . On November 1 9 , 1981, d e f e n d a n t s moved t h e District Court f o r a contempt o r d e r a g a i n s t t h e commissioners. On J u n e 25, 1982, t h e District Court i s s u e d an o r d e r h o l d i n g t h e commissioners i n c i v i l contempt f o r f a i l u r e to a b i d e by t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r s of J u n e 12 and August 1 3 , 1981. The D i s t r i c t Court f i n e d t h e commissioners $300 and o r d e r e d them t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e contempt proceeding. The o r d e r gave t h e commissioners oppor- t u n i t y to purge themselves of t h e contempt c i t a t i o n by revoking t h e October 3 0 , 1981, o r d e r w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s . On August 3 , 1982, t h e commissioners f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r w r i t of review i n t h i s Court. The p e t i t i o n raises f i v e i s s u e s f o r review: 1. Whether t h e District Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ; 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court had j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e sub- ject matter of t h e p e t i t i o n e r s ' j u r i s d i c t i o n a l powers and t i t l e t o t h e roadway; 3. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court can l i m i t s t a t u t o r y powers of e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s w i t h o u t g i v i n g t h e e l e c t e d o f f i c i a l s t h e oppor- t u n i t y to a p p e a r and o f f e r testimony; 4 . Whether t h e p e t i t i o n e r s can be h e l d i n contempt w i t h o u t a n e v i d e n t i a r y h e a r i n g ; 5. Whether a t t o r n e y f e e s can be g r a n t e d i n a contempt pro- c e e d i n g i n a d d i t i o n t o t h e p e n a l t y imposed. W e f i n d i s s u e number two to be d i s p o s i t i v e . The com- m i s s i o n e r s contend t h e District Court d i d n o t have s u b j e c t matter j u r i s d i c t i o n t o e n t e r a n o r d e r which i n e f f e c t abandoned t h e roadway. Here, t h e d e d i c a t e d roadway was included i n t h e o r i g i - n a l p l a t of Mountain V i e w Orchards f i l e d i n 1908. The r e l e v a n t s t a t u t e i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of d e d i c a t i o n was s e c t i o n 1337, Revised Codes of Montana 1907. The s e c t i o n states i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t : " 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 , . . . a r e p u b l i c highways. " I n B a i l e y v . R a v a l l i County ( 1 9 8 2 ) f Mont . - , 653 P.2d 139, 39 St.Rep. 2010, t h i s Court h e l d a similar d e d i c a t e d roadway c r e a t e d a p u b l i c roadway or highway a t t h e t i m e of d e d i c a t i o n . S e c t i o n 7-14-2615 MCA, states : " ( 1 ) A l l county r o a d s once e s t a b l i s h e d must c o n t i n u e to be county r o a d s u n t i l abandoned or v a c a t e d by : " ( a ) o p e r a t i o n of l a w ; "(b) judgment of a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n ; or " ( c ) t h e o r d e r of t h e board. " ( 2 ) No o r d e r t o abandon any county road s h a l l be v a l i d u n l e s s preceded by n o t i c e and p u b l i c h e a r i n g . " The District Court a r g u e s it had j u r i s d i c t i o n to abandon t h e r o a d v i a s e c t i o n 7-14-2615(1) ( b ) , MCA, because it is a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . However, s e c t i o n 7-14-2601, e t s e q . , MCA, e s t a b l i s h e s t h e procedure t o abandon a road. The s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e r e q u i r e s t h e f i l i n g of a p e t i t i o n by t e n f r e e h o l d e r s w i t h t h e Board o f County Commissioners; i n v e s t i g a t i o n by t h e Board; d e c i s i o n ; and n o t i c e to t h e a d j o i n i n g landowners. Here , t h e r e were t w o p e t i t i o n s f i l e d . One to open t h e road and one to abandon t h e road. A t t h e commissioners I meeting t h e m i n u t e s r e f l e c t t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e commissioners was to not act on e i t h e r p e t i t i o n . A t t h i s p o i n t t h e Carters f i l e d a c i v i l a c t i o n i n District Court s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n o b s t r u c t i o n of t h e r o a d . However, t h e D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d d e f e n d a n t s 1 motion f o r summary judgment and o r d e r e d t h e commissioners to do one of t w o t h i n g s : "1. R e t a i n t h e s u b j e c t land i n t r u s t f o r t h e p u b l i c ; 2. Return t h e land to t h e g r a n t o r s . The Commissioners do not have d i s c r e t i o n t o do any o t h e r t h i n g s , i n c l u d i n g opening t h e l a n d . " The e f f e c t of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r was to abandon t h e road whereas t h e i n i t i a l c a u s e of a c t i o n was i n j u n c t i o n . A s e x p l a i n e d above, t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r abandoning a road is t o p e t i - t i o n t h e Board of Commissioners. The D i s t r i c t Court does not have o r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n to e n t e r t a i n t h e p e t i t i o n . Should p e t i t i o n e r s o r r e s p o n d e n t s be u n s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e commissioners , t h e y could t h e n p e t i t i o n t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r a w r i t of review p u r s u a n t to s e c t i o n 27-25-102, MCA: "A w r i t of review may be g r a n t e d by: ( 2 ) t h e supreme c o u r t or t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o r any judge t h e r e o f , when an . . . board . . . h a s exceeded t h e j u r i s d i c t i o n of such . . . board . . . and t h e r e is no a p p e a l o r , i n t h e judgment of t h e c o u r t , any p l a i n speedy, and a d e q u a t e remedy. " Upon a w r i t of review t h e D i s t r i c t Court would become a c o u r t of competent j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e f i n d t h i s t o be t h e o n l y method f o r t h e District Court to o b t a i n j u r i s d i c t i o n to abandon a road. Here, t h i s p r o c e d u r e was n o t f o l l o w e d . A s t h e p r o p e r procedure was not f o l l o w e d , t h e District Court d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n to o r d e r abandonment of t h e road. The commissioners c l a i m t h e y cannot be h e l d i n con- tempt f o r v i o l a t i n g an o r d e r which exceeded t h e District C o u r t ' s j u r i s d i c t i o n . W e a g r e e . A p a r t y cannot be h e l d i n contempt f o r d i s o b e y i n g an o r d e r which t h e c o u r t had no a u t h o r i t y to make. P h i l l i p s v. Loberg ( 1 9 8 0 ) , - - - Mont . - r 607 P.2d 561, 564, 37 Because t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court exceeded its j u r i s d i c t i o n by o r d e r i n g t h e road abandoned, it had no a u t h o r i t y to hold t h e com- m i s s i o n e r s i n contempt f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e o r d e r . T h e r e f o r e , t h e o r d e r h o l d i n g t h e commissioners i n contempt is v a c a t e d . Justices M r . J u s t i c e John C. Sheehy d i s s e n t s and w i l l f i l e a w r i t t e n d i s s e n t l a t e r . Mr. Justice John C. Sheehy, dissenting: I dissent. The Board of County Commissioners of Ravalli County are in contempt of the presiding judge and of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Montana for the County of Ravalli, and this Court should uphold the right of that District Court to protect its process and proceedings from obstruction and disruption by the contemnors. In the underlying suit to determine whether a roadway existed, the District Court had concluded that a roadway had indeed been dedicated to the public use; that since the time of its dedication, no use as a roadway had occurred; that by its lack of use for more than 70 years, the public had abandoned any right to have the dedicated stip used as a roadway; and because of the absolute waiver that had so occurred the county commissioners could either (1) continue to hold the land in public trust, or (2) vacate the roadway. The board of county commissioners violated, obstructed and disrupted the proceedings and decision of the District Court in the underlying cause by adopting a resolution contra to the order of the court, and in effect countermanding the decree of the court that the landowners had no right to a roadway. It is true that the Board of County Commissioners were not parties to the action in which the court made its decision. What the majority forgets, however, is that an action for contempt is a separate cause of action. Contempt proceedings are entirely independent of the civil action for which they arise. McPartlin v. Fransen (1978), 178 Mont. 178, 582 P.2d 1255. The power of the District Court reaches to any person or officer who is in contempt of the authority of the court by misbehavior in office or by any other unla.wfu1 interference with the process or proceedings of a court. Section 3-1-501, MCA. Here the District Court, after hearing, determined that the commissioners were in fact in contempt of the court's authority and levied a punishment of $300 on each and attorney's fees, which punishment they could purge by vacating the contemptuous order which they had made. The majority fails to note in is statement of facts that one of the commissioners who signed the contemptuous order was Hugh G. Cumming, a nearby landowner who would benefit from the County Commissioners' order that the roadway be maintained. I can think of no more contemptuous situation than to have a . public officer for his personal benefit use the power of his office to flaunt a lawful decision of the District Court. This Court's decision leaves the respondents in a legal no-man's land. They have a judgment from the Fourth Judicial District Court that there has been a waiver by the public of any right to use the strip of land as a roadway. They have a Board of County Commissioners' subsequent order which has the effect of establishing the roadway. It is small wonder tha.t taxpayers and litigants are perplexed by decisions of the courts that in the guise of reasoned approaches can sanctify two exactly divergent results. Justice \