Case Name: JACK CAIN, Petitioner and respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES et al., Respondents and Appellants
Court: Montana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Montana
Decision Date: 1978-07-24
Citations: 177 Mont. 448
Docket Number: No. 14040
Parties: JACK CAIN, Petitioner and respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES et al., Respondents and Appellants.
Judges: MR. JUSTICES DALY and HARRISON concur.
Reporter: Montana Reports
Volume: 177
Pages: 448–455

Head Matter:
JACK CAIN, Petitioner and respondent, v. The DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES et al., Respondents and Appellants.
No. 14040.
Submitted June 14, 1978.
Decided July 24, 1978.
Rehearing Denied Aug. 24, 1978.
582 P.2d 332.
Eleanor A. Parker, argued, Helena, Douglas B. Olson, Helena, for respondents and appellants.
Brown, Pepper & Kommers, Bozeman, Gene I. Brown, argued, Bozeman, James Beck, Highway Legal Dept., Helena, for petitioner and respondent.

Opinion:
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE HASWELL
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Department of Health and Environmental Sciences (DOH) appeals from a judgment entered in the District Court of Gallatin County which mandated issuance of a license from DOH for petitioner's junkyard business. The Department of Highways and the other respondents did not appeal from the judgment.
In April 1976, petitioner was charged in the Gallatin County Justice Court with operating a motor vehicle wrecking facility without having it properly shielded from public view. He was convicted, by a jury, of the charge on August 10, 1977. The Justice of the Peace ordered petitioner to shield his facility within six months.
In 1977, petitioner applied for a license for his facility from DOH. The application was denied because petitioner's facility was not properly shielded. On February 17, 1977, petitioner instituted this action for a writ of mandate to obtain a license for his facility from DOH. Following a hearing, the District Court entered find ings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment. On August 29, 1977, the District Court amended the findings in form but not in substance.
The District Court found that petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandate; that he had no legal obligation to fence or screen his facility; that the Department of Highways had a legal obligation to fence or screen the facility; that DOH rule MAC 16-2.14(2)— SI4261, which requires motor vehicle wrecking facilities to be shielded from public view to obtain a license, is void as being in conflict with sections 32-4513, R.C.M.1947, et seq.; that the criminal prosecution against petitioner was void; and that petitioner was entitled to a license and recovery of his attorney fees.
The court entered its judgment on August 8, 1977. Following denial of a motion for new trial, DOH appeals.
In its appeal, DOH has raised three issues for our consideration which can be summarized in one: Did the District Court err in issuing a writ of mandate?
Petitioner here is subject to two licensing statutes because his motor vehicle wrecking facility is located within 1,000 feet of a primary highway. The two statutes are: Junkyards Along Roads Act, Title 32, Chapter 45, R.C.M.1947; and, Motor Vehicle Wrecking Facilities Act, Title 69, Chapter 68, R.C.M.1947. The licensing authority for each of these acts is DOH.
The Junkyards Along Roads Act specifically requires a facility to be shielded from public view as a condition of licensing. Section 32-4517, R.C.M.1947. The act does, however, grant an exception to this shielding requirement for facilities in existence prior to July 1, 1967. Section 32-4518. This section provides that the shielding of such facilities shall be carried out by the Department of Highways, if feasible. If not feasible, the Department is to move the facility.
Prior to 1977, the Motor Vehicle Wrecking Facility Act did not have any specific statutory provisions for shielding such facilities. It did have a provision authorizing DOH to establish rules for the administration and enforcement of the act. Section 69-6808, R.C.M.1947. Pursuant to this section DOH adopted its shielding rule, MAC 16-2.14(2) — S14261. In 1977, this rule was made a part of the act. Section 69-6808(6).
Petitioner brought this action so that he could get the necessary license for his facility. DOH argues that the court erred in granting the writ. They claim that as long as petitioner's facility is not shielded, they cannot give him a license. To give him a license, according to DOH, would contravene the purpose of both statutes. Accordingly they contend then that the judgment of the District Court must be reversed. We disagree.
This Court has held that the granting of a writ of mandate is a matter of discretion to be determined by the District Court and will be sustained on appeal unless there is a showing that the District Court abused its discretion. State ex rel. Browman v. Wood (1975), 168 Mont. 341, 543 P.2d 184. In this case, DOH has not shown us that the court abused its discretion in granting the writ.
A writ of mandate will issue only where the person seeking to invoke it is entitled to have the defendant perform a clear legal duty and there is no speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. State ex rel. Swart v. Casne (1977), 172 Mont. 302, 564 P.2d 983. Ordinarily mandamus will not lie to compel the performance of a discretionary function. State ex rel. Butte Youth Service Center v. Murray (1976), 170 Mont. 171, 551 P.2d 1017. However, if there has been such an abuse of discretion as to amount to no exercise of discretion at all, mandamus will lie to compel the proper exercise of powers granted. Barnes v. Town of Belgrade (1974), 164 Mont. 467, 524 P.2d 1112.
The grant or denial of a license to operate a junkyard facility or motor vehicle wrecking facility involves the use of discretion on the part of DOH. DOH has a clear legal duty to grant petitioner a license if his facility is in compliance with the law. Admittedly, petitioner's facility does not have the required shielding. However, that is due to no fault of his own. As the District Court found, the Department of Highways, not petitioner, has the legal duty to shield his facility. Thus, for DOH to deny petitioner a license be cause his facility is not shielded when another agency of this state is obligated to shield the facility, amounts to no exercise of discretion at all on the part of DOH. Petitioner was entitled to a writ of mandate as it was his only adequate remedy.
Nonetheless, the District Court committed a technical error in the judgment which was entered. In its findings of fact, the court found that the Department of Highways had the legal obligation to shield petitioner's facility because petitioner's facility was in existence before July 1, 1967. The court found that the shielding of this facility was feasible. However, in the judgment, the court did not order the Department of Highways to shield petitioner's facility. Such an order should have been a part of the judgment.
An appellate court has the authority to modify a judgment in mandamus proceedings. 55 C.J.S. Mandamus, § 374; People ex rel. Cahokia U. S. D. v. East St. Louis S. D. (1972), 6 Ill.App.3d 511, 285 N.E.2d 487; Bussie v. Long (LaApp.1973), 286 So.2d 689.
Therefore, the judgment of the District Court is modified to the extent that the Department of Highways is ordered to shield petitioner's facility to bring it into compliance with the acts in question here. As so modified, we affirm.
MR. JUSTICES DALY and HARRISON concur.
MR. JUSTICE SHEEHY deeming himself disqualified did not participate in this cause.