No. 87-513, 87-542 INTHE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

No. 87-513 DONALDW. LAKE and BERNADINEA. LAKE, husband & wife, Plaintiffsand Appellants.-vsLAKE COUNTY,MONTANA, and INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE LAKECOUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, Defendantsand Respondents.

THECITY OF RONAN,aMontana Municipal corporation, Plaintiffand Respondent,-vsDONALD WILLIAM LAKE,a/k/aDONALD

### W. LAKE, and BERNADINE

### A. LAKE, Defendantsand Appellants.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the TwentiethJudicialDistrict, In and for theCounty of Lake, TheHonorable C.B. McNeil, Judgepresiding.

COUNSELOF RECORD:

ForAppellant: Edward 

### K. Duckworth, Ronan,Montana

ForRespondent: William H. Coldiron;Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena,Montana Larry J. H~stler, CountyAttorney,Polson,llontana ForAmicus Curiae: (DavidTilton,Deputy CountyAtty.) PhilipJ. Grainey; FrenchMercer & Grainey,Polson, Montana

Submittedon Briefs: June 9,1988 Decided: ALlg~st 2, 1988

ClerkMr. Justice John C. Sheehy delivered the Opinion of the Court.

This action was commenced as an eminent domain proceeding brought by the City of Ronan (Ronan) to condemn land owned by the Lakes in furtherance of an airport expansion project. Donald and Bernadine Lake responded by seekinga preliminary injunctionhalting the actionby Ronan, summary judgment and a delay in the proceedings. The Lakes also sought a preliminary injunction against Lake County prohibiting fundingof Ronan's actions. Following a hearing, the District Court of the Twentieth Judicial District, Lake County, issued orders denying the Lake'smotions and quashing the motion for preliminary injunction as to Lake County. We affirm. The issuesbefore the Court are: 1. Does formation of a joint airportboard pursuant to 5 67-10-204, -206, MCA, preclude independentexercise of the power of eminent domain by a member municipality for airport purposes? 2. Does Ronan's independent eminent domain proceeding constitute a violation of the Lakes' right to due process? 3. Did the District Court err in denying the Lakes' application for a preliminary injunction against Ronan? 4. Did the District Court err ingranting Lake County's motion to quash the Lakes' application for a preliminary injunction? On October 16, 1947, Lake County, the City of Polson, the Town of St. Ignatius, and Ronan entered an agreement providing for the establishmentof a joint airportboard. As the original agreement neared its expiration date, the parties again joined together in an attempt to further the

### public good. On March 18, 1966, the parties entered an agreement fora term of 25

### yearswhich,as amended, provides, in pertinentpart: I

CREATION OF JOINTBOARD There is hereby created,pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 288, Laws of 1947, a Joint Airport Board, to have, and which shall have, the jurisdiction over the planning, acquiring, establishment, development, construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, operation, regulation, protection and policing of said joint airports or landing fields or other air navigation facilities established, owned or controlled, or to be established, owned or controlled by the county and cities and town aforementioned, located upon the sites above mentioned and which shall have, as well, jurisdiction over the airporthazards as authorized by Chapter 288, Laws of 1947.

POWERSAND DUTIES The Joint Airport Board created and established hereby shallhave the following powers and duties: (1) Toprovide for theplanning, acquisition, establishment, development, construction, enlargement, improvement, maintenance, equipment, operation, regulation, protection and policing of the joint airports or landing fields on the sites above described, and other air navigation facilities established thereon or tobe established thereon and all airport hazards, but the said Joint Airport Board shall make no contract nor incur any obligation for such purposes, nor for any one of them, which singly or in the aggregate shall involve an expenditure of any more money than is available under the Joint Airport Board Budget for such purpose.The agreement does notvest the jointairportboard with the power to tax or the power of eminent domain. In addition,although the agreement provides for joint ownership of the various airports, Ronan has held record fee simple title to the Ronan airportproperty since its construction in the early 1950's. The controversy athand arises as a result of Ronan's efforts to condemn the Lake's land in order to expand the airport without benefit of the consent and approval of the joint airportboard. On August 29, 1986, Ronan and Lake County jointly applied to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for an airport expansion grant in order to fund acquisition of the land. Following approvalof a $256,500 grantby the FAA,and written acceptance of the same by Ronan and Lake County, the money was deposited in the "Airport Fund for the City of Ronan.I' Shortly thereafter, Ronan began eminent domain proceedings against the Lakes. Ronan's efforts were funded by the "Airport Fund for the City of Ronan." EMINENTDOMAIN The crucial question is the effect of the 1966 agreement entered into by Ronan and the other signators. The Lakes argue that as a result of the adoption of the joint airport board agreement,S 67-10-205(2)(c)

## ,MCA,mandates that Ronan may bring an eminent domain proceeding for airport purposes only as a joint action with the other signators. We conclude,however, that the Lakes take an overly narrow view of Ronan's power of eminentdomain. Generally, the power of eminent domain is viewed as an inherent attribute of sovereignty existing without reliance

on constitutional acknowledgement. State v. Aitchison

(1934), 96 Mont. 335, 341, 30 P.2d 805, 808. At its heart, the sovereign'sright of eminent domain is little more than an embodiment of the principle that the rights of theindividual sometimespale in comparisonwith the needs of the

common welfare. Butte, Anaconda & Pacific Ry. v. Montana Union Ry. Co. (1895), 16 Mont. 504, 536, 41 

### P. 232, 243. It is a right necessarily incident to the government's duty to

serve the commonneed and advance the generalwelfare. From the days of early statehood, the legislature has recognized the need to endowmunicipalitieswith the power of eminent domain for the good of thewhole. Consequently, with the advent of the broad availabilityof commercial aviation, the 1947 Montana Legislature acted to ensure that Montanans would reap the benefits inherent in increased air service. See, Ch. 288, Laws of Montana (1947). Then, as now, "Expansion, not restriction, [was] the legislative watchword.

### " See Montana Talc Co. v. Cyprus Mine Co. (1987)

### , 748 P.2d at 444, 448,44 St.Rep. 2161, 2166. Chapter 288 of the Laws of Montana (1947), declared itself tobe an act "providing for acquisition, construction, maintenance, operation, and regulation" of airports by municipalities and counties. In addition, theAct authorizes counties and municipalities to accomplish this task either jointly or separately, through the use of eminent domain. See, Ch. 288, S;S; 3, 14, Laws of Montana (1947)

# . However, consistent with the broad grant of authority embodied by the Act, and the earlier enactments of the 1929 legislature granting similar rights, the 1947 legislation did not specifically provide that the creation of a joint airport board constituted a waiver of the right to independent action. Both the 1929 and 1947 Acts, as codified in Title 67,Ch. 10,remain substantially unchanged. At issue in the instant case is the interaction of the various sections of Title 67,Ch. 10. The statutes at issue provide inpertinent part:

### 67-10-102. Acquisition and establishment of airports and landing fields. (1) counties, cities, ax towns in this state may, either individually or the jointaction of a county and one or moreofthecities and towns within its border, acquire by gift, deed, purchase, or condemnation land for airport or landing field purposes and thereon establish, construct, own, control, lease, equip, improve, operate and

- - 

### regulate airports

# . .

# .. (2) 

### Inaddition a county,city, or townmay

### do the acts authorized by this section by acting jointly with one ormore counties,with one ormore cities, with one or more towns, or any combinationof such counties, cities,or towns

# ..

# . 67-10-103. Public purpose. (1) Any lands acquired, owned, controlled, or occupied by any county, city, or town, individually or- to on action as herein provided for-the purposes enumerated in 67-10-102, are acquired, owned, controlled, and occupied for a public use and as a matter of public necessity, and such counties, cities, and-towns,whether-acting individually or jointly, 

### -- have the right 

## to acquire property for such purposes under the power of eminent domain as and for

### apublic use or 'ecessity. (2) 

### The acquisition of any land or interest therein pursuant to this chapter; the planning, acquisition, establishment, development, construction, improvement,maintenance, equipment, operation, regulation,protection, and policing of airports and air navigation facilities, including the acquisition or elimination of airport hazards; and the exercise of any other powers hereingranted to municipalities and other public asencies,to be 

### -- severally-or jointly exercised, are public and governmentaT functions, exercised for a 

### public purpose andmatters ofpublic necessity

# ...- 67-10-201. General municipal powers (1) Every municipality may, out of any appropriations or other money made available for such purposes, plan, establish, develop, construct, enlarge, improve, maintain, equip, operate, regulate, protect, and 

### police airports and air navigation facilities, either within or without theterritorial limits of suchmunicipality and within or without the territorial boundaries of this state, including the construction, installation, equipment, maintenance, and operation at such airports of buildings and other facilities for the servicing of aircraft or for the comfort and accomodation of air travelers and the purchase and sale of supplies, goods, and commodities as an incident to the operation of its airport properties. For suchpurposes themunicipalitymay use any available property that it may now or hereafter own or control and may, by purchase, gift, devise, lease,eminent domain proceedings, or otherwise, acquire property, real or personal, or any interest therein,.

# . . 67-10-202. Creation ofboard--fundin%--rules. (1) The county, city, ortown,acting individually or acting jointly as authorized by 67-10-102,having established an airport or landing field and acquired property for such purpose, may construct, improve, equip, maintain, and operate the same and for that purpose may create a board or body from the inhabitants of such county, city, or town, or such joint subdivisions of the state for the purpose of conferring upon them, and may confer upon them, the jurisdiction for the improvement, equipment, maintenance, and operation-of such airport or landing field..


# .

# . 67-10-204. Joint exercise of powers. (2) All powers, privileges, and authority granted to any municipality by this chapter 

### may 

### - be exercised and enjoyed jointly with any public agency of this state and jointly with any public agency of any other state or of the United States to the extent that the laws of such other state or of the United States permit such joint exercise or enjoyment.. 

# .

# . 67-10-205. Joint airport board. (1) Public agencies acting jointly pursuant to 67-10-204 through 67-10-206 shall create a joint board which shall consistofmembers appointedby the governing body of each participating public agency.. 

# . . The joint board shall have power to plan, acquire, establish, develop, construct, enlarge, improve, maintain, equip, operate, regulate, protect, and police any airport or air navigation facility orairport hazard to be jointly acquired, controlled, and operated;and suchboard may exercise onbehalf of its constituent public agencies all the powers of each with respect to such airport, air navigation facility, or airport hazard, subject to the limitations of subsection (2) of this section.. 

# . .

(2)(c) Eminent domain proceedings under 67-10-204 through 67-10-206 may be instituted only by authority of the governing bodies of the constituentpublic agencies of the jointboard. If so authorized, such proceedings shallbe instituted in the names of the constituent public agencies jointly,and theproperty so acquired shall be held by said public agencies as tenants in common until conveyed by them to the joint board. (Emphasis added.) By its terms, § 67-10-205(2)(c), MCA, requires joint action when an eminent domainproceeding isbrought pursuant to the authority of a joint airport board. However, it does not, on its face, preclude action separateand apart from the joint airport board. Statutes cannot be examined in a

vacuum. Rather, statutes affecting the same topic should be read together and, if possible, harmonized so as to give effect to each of them. See, Schuman v. Bestrom (Mont. 1985), 693 P.2d 536, 42 St.Rep. 54. In the instant case, §§ 67-10-102,-103, -201,and -202, MCA, evidence a legislative intent to empower municipalities to act either jointly or independently. In addition, our state constitution demonstrates an intent to endow cities with a broad grant of power. "The powers of incorporated cities and towns and counties shallbe liberally construed." Art. 

### XI, 4(2), 1972 Mont. Const. Further, when the authority of a city is in question, "every reasonable doubt

as to the existence of a local governmentpower or authority

[isto] be resolved in favor of the existence of the exercise of thatpower or authority." Section 7-1-106,MCA.To limit the statutory scheme to the narrow interpretation suggested by the Lakes would fly in the face ofboth constitutionaland legislative directive. We are not prepared todo so. Neither the joint airportboard agreement

nor any of the provisions of Title 67,Ch. 10, specifically prohibit the independent exercise of a municipality's power of eminent domain. Rather the power in this case is expressly granted. We must conclude that Ronan acted within its statutory powers to exercise eminentdomain. DUE PROCESS The crux of the Lakes' due process argument is that it is unfair to allow Ronan to bring an independent eminent domain proceeding and thereby manipulate the geographical area subject to a public necessity determination. However, although ably argued, the Lakes are unable to cite authority in support of their contention. We conclude that such a failure is not the result of a lack of diligence, but rather reflects the lack ofmerit of the claim. The right to due process guarantees that no person shall be deprived of property pursuant to eminent domain proceedings without adequate notice, 

### a hearing and just compensation. See Housing Authority v. Bjork (1940), 109 Mont. 552, 98 P.2d 324. Ronan's compliancewith the eminent domain procedures contained within Title 70, Ch. 30, MCA, clearly satisfies those requirements. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION As the Lakes' claim to entitlement to a preliminary injunction was founded on the alleged statutory and constitutional violations committed by Ronan, the claim is clearly without merit. We therefore limit our discussion to the issue of the quashing of the application forpreliminary injunction against Lake County.The first allegation of error concerns the adequacy of the DistrictCourt's orderdenying the Lakes' application for preliminary injunction and granting Lake County's motion to quash. Specifically, that the District Court failed to make adequate findingsof fact and conclusions of law. Pursuant to Rule 52(a),M.R.Civ.P., orders granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions shall be accompanied by findings of fact and conclusions of law. See Ensley 

### v. Murphy (1983), 202 Mont. 406, 658 P.2d 418. However, the extent of such findings and conclusions is necessarily dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case. Consequently, the litmus test in such cases is whether the District Court's order sets forth its reasoning in a manner sufficient to allow informed appellate review. Accord, Clemansv. Martin (Mont. 1986), 719 P.2d 787, 43 St.Rep. 994. In the instant case, the District Court found that the Lakes' prayer for relief failed because they retained a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy at law--the Lakes complaint for damages. Although the court failed to state its findings and conclusions in the recommended form, the court's reasoning is nevertheless clear. Under such circumstances,we conclude the Lakes' specification of error is meritless. In the second and third specifications of error, the Lakes contend that the District Court's order is erroneous because the possible award of damages is not sufficient to remedy Lake County's illegal funding of Ronan's illegal eminent domain proceedings, and that the County's action results in the indirect seizure of the Lakes' land because the land will be held by the joint airport board. We disagree. As noted above, Ronan is free to pursue independent eminent domain proceedings. Upon the successful completionof the eminent domain proceedings, and payment of just compensation,title to the property will be vested in Ronan alone. Neither Lake County nor the joint airport board will hold an interest in theproperty. The Lakes' contention that Lake County is indirectly seizing their land must therefore fail.In addition, the Lakes have made no showing that the funding of the project is unlawful. Lake County merely acts

as custodian of the separate airport funds. When not bound by the procedural constraints of joint action under 5 67-10-201, et seq., MCA, Lake County remains free to release funds to Ronan upon lawful request 

### A The judgment is affirmed.

Justice We Concur: I

Justices



### %IvuJb

Hon. Frank

# & I. flaswell, 

# Lit'-4

sitting for Chief ~ustice J. A. Turnage