NO. 83-203 

IN THE SUPREfilE COURT OF THE STATE OF PlOPJTANA 

1983 

STATE OF MONTANA, ex rel., 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTIS AND ENVIRO?JEIENTAL 

SCIENCES, 

Plaintiff and Respondent, 

-vsCECIL L. BERPJEIARD, 

Defendant and Appellant. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Lincoln, 

The Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Jeffrey Shron, Missoula, Montana 

For Respondent: 

William A. Douglas, County Attorney, Libby, 

Montana 

. ----A 

Submitted on Briefs: August 4, 1983 

Decided: January 26, 1984 

JU!V ;! .: 1;jgq Filed: 
Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea delivered the Opinion of the 

Court. 

Cecil IJ. Bernhard appeals an order of Lincoln County 

District Court enjoining him from operating a motor vehicl-e 

wrecking faci-lity without a license and ordering him to 

shield the junk vehicles from public view. The court, under 

section 75-10-542(2), MCA, imposed a fine of $50 per day for 

each day from t.he date of the order if Bernhard did not 

comply. The court also ordered the Department of Health and 

Environmental Sciences to remove the vehicles if Rernhard 

failed to follow the order. 

In his appeal, Bernhard argues that he rebutted the 

statutory presumption of section 75-10-502, MCA, that 

possession of four or more junk vehicles is operation of a. 

motor vehicl-e wrecking facility. He cl-aims testimony of his 

two witnesses rehutted that presumption. Bernhard also 

argues that the state, not he, is responsible for shielding 

the junk vehicles. We affirm the trial court's decision. 

Bernhard was civilly charged July 2, 1979, with 

operating a motor vehicle wrecking facility without a license 

in vj.olation of section 75-10-511, MCA. The statute provides 

for both criminal and civil penalties in the form of a 

thirty-day jail term, fines of up to $250 and injunctions. 

Section 75-10-542, MCA. However, the State sought only civil 

penalties. The State requested an in junctj.on to prevent 

Bernhard from operating until he received a license, an 

injunction requiring him to either shield the junks or 

dispose of them, and a fine of $50 per day from January 1, 

1979, for failing to have a license. 

Bernhard owns fifty to seventy-five old a.nd battered 

cars or their hulks. Under section 75-1-0-502, MCA, 
possession of four or more junk vehicles triggers the 

presumption of operating a motor wrecking facility. A motor 

wrecking facility is essentially a facility buying, selling, 

or dealing in junk vehicles with the purpose to wreck, 

dismantle or disa-ssemble the cars, section 75-10-501(5), MCA. 

Junk vehicles are defined in section 75-10-501(3), MCA, as "a 

discarded, ruined, wrecked or dismantled vehicle which is 

not. . . licensed and is incapable of beina driven." 

A nonjury trial was held November 3.2, 1982, at which 

both the State and Bernhard presented witnesses ' testimony. 

The State presented the county sanitarian, who testified that 

Rernhard possessed four or more junk vehicles. Anderson 

testified that the vehicles are visible from two highways and 

that Bernhard refuses to shield the vehicles, which he must 

do as a condition to obtaining a license. 

Bernhard attempted to rebut the statutory presumption 

with the testimony of two neighbors. They testified that 

they did not know if Bernhard was selling any cars or car 

hulks, but knew that Bernhard did not advertise as a wrecking 

facility. However, this testimony, on its face, does not 

overcome the statutory presumption of operating a wrecking 

facility. Rernhard's own testimony was that he used car 

parts from the junks to reassemble and repair cars and trucks 

he owned. The trial. judge also found! that Rernhard did not 

rebut the presumption and ruled that Rernhard was operatinu a 

wrecking facility without a license. The trial court gave 

Bernhard the option to shield. the vehicles or allow the 

Department of Health and Environmental Sciences to remove all 

but three of the junked cars. The trial judge also imposed 

the statutory civil penalty of $50 per day from May 1, 1983, 

if Bernhard failed to shield the vehicles or dispose of them, 
section 75-10-542 (2), MCA. Execution was stayed pending 

appeal to this Court. 

The trial court's findings are supported by substantial 

evidence, and the presumption of operating a wrecking 

facility is permissible in this civil context. Bernhard was 

previously criminally convicted for noncompliance with the 

statutory requirements to obtain a license. State v. 

Bernhard (1977), 173 Mont. 464, 568 P.2d 136. However, this 

most recent action was not based on that conviction but 

pursued. under the civil en.£ orcement provision of section 

75-10-541, MCA, which provides for injunction and fines for 

noncompliance with the statute. 

Bernhard refused to comply with the statutes. 

Enforcement was properly pursued by the civil remedies 

available to the State. We affirm the trial court's 

injunction and imposition of civil penalties. 

Assuming his possession of junk cars is tanta-mount to 

operating a wrecking facility, Bernhard then claims that the 

State is responsible for shielding the junk cars. However, 

this would be true only if he had operated a properly 

licensed wrecking facility before 1967. Bernhard did not 

have a license to operate a wrecking facility in 1967, and 

the current statute requires him to shield the vehicles to 

obtain a license, section 75-10-504, MCA. In addition, an 

administrative regulation applies here. If Rernhard chooses 

to remove all but three junk vehicles, S 16.14.206, A.R.M., 

requires him to shield one to three junk vehicles. 

The trial court's decision is affirmed. 
We concur: 

\;-.]$$- c? &~k 

ustices