Title: MATTER OF CREATION OF WEST GREAT F
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-559
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 16, 1982

No. 81-559 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 TN THE MATTER OF: THE CREATION OF THE WEST GREAT FALLS FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT Ex Rel: RICHARD AND GERDA GREENWOOD Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Hon. H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Leo Graybill, Jr., Graybill, Ostrem, Warner & Crotty, Great Falls, Montana For Respondent: Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg, & Matteucci, Great Falls, Montana - -- Submitted on Briefs: Nay 6 , 1982 Decided: July 16, 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. A p p e l l a n t s own t e n p l a t t e d l o t s i n t h e Sun River Park Addition on t h e west s i d e of G r e a t F a l l s . The West G r e a t F a l l s Flood C o n t r o l and Drainage D i s t r i c t condemned t h e s e l o t s f o r t h e purpose of b u i l d i n g a l e v e e t h e r e o n and o f f e r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s approximately $35,000 f o r t h e land. The d r a i n a g e p r o j e c t ' s a p p r a i s e r b a s e d t h i s v a l u a t i o n upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e land a s a s i n g l e t r a c t . The a p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t they a r e e n t i t l e d t o approximately $55,000--the v a l u e t h e i r a p p r a i s e r d e r i v e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y a s t e n p l a t t e d l o t s . The a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a remonstrance i n t h e Cascade County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and t h e m a t t e r was heard on J a n u a r y 7 , 1981, and February 2-4, 1981. The D i s t r i c t Court r e q u i r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o come forward with t h e i r evidence and gave them t h e burden of proving t h e i r damages. The D i s t r i c t Court awarded t h e a p p e l l a n t s approxi- mately $38,000. T h i s f i g u r e was approximately t h e same v a l u e t h a t t h e Drainage D i s t r i c t had recommended t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s be awarded. T h i s appeal followed. The i s s u e s on appeal can be summarized a s f o l l o w s : 1. D o t h e a p p e l l a n t s have a r i g h t t o be compensated f o r t h e i r land according t o its v a l u e a s p l a t t e d l o t s , r a t h e r than according t o its v a l u e a s a s i n g l e t r a c t ? 2. Who h a s t h e burden of proof i n t h i s t y p e of proceeding and i n what o r d e r should i t be presented? A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t , because t h e i r land was sub- d i v i d e d and t h e p l a t r e c o r d e d , it should have been valued on an i n d i v i d u a l l o t b a s i s r a t h e r than a s a whole t r a c t . The a p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t t h e land must be d i v i d e d i n t o l o t s f o r its h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e - - r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t y . I n S t a t e v. H o b l i t t ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 87 Mont. 403, 288 P. 181, t h i s Court d i s c u s s e d t h e method t h a t must be a p p l i e d t o a r r i v e a t t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t use by s t a t i n g : "The owner h a s t h e r i g h t t o o b t a i n t h e market v a l u e o f t h e l a n d . based uDon its a v a i l a b i l - ------- i t y f o r t h e most v a l u a b l e ---- p u r p o s e f o r which i t c a n b e u s e d , w h e t h e r s o u s e d o r n o t .................................... (Montana Ry. Co. v , Warren, 6 Mont. 275, 12 - P. 6 4 1 ) , b u t t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a purpose means c a p a b l e of b e i n g u s e d f o r t h e p u r p o s e ----- - - - - - - - ( W e b s t e r t s New I n t . D i c t i o n a r y ) , and, a s t h e m a r k e t v a l u e a t t h e d a t e o f t h e summons .................................. c o n t r o l s , t h e land must be shown t o have been m a r k e t a b l e a t t h a t t i m e f o r t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d ( I n r e Niagara Power Co., 133 Misc. Rep. 177, 231 N.Y.S. 7 2 ) ; t h e showing must be t h a t t h e use is one t o which t h e land may r e a s o n a b l y be a p p l i e d (Bloxton v. Highway Commission, 225 Ky. 324, 8 S.W.2d 3 9 2 ) , such a s would probably a f f e c t a p u r c h a s e r (Emmons v. U t i l i t i e s Co., 83 N.H. 181, 141 A. 65, 58 A.L.R. 7 8 8 ) . "Lewis, i n h i s work on Eminent Domain (3d Ed.) vol. 2, p. 1232, says: ' I t is s a i d i n some c a s e s t h a t it is proper t o c o n s i d e r every element of v a l u e which would be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a s a l e between p r i v a t e p a r t i e s . But t h i s needs some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , s i n c e r e m o t e and s p e c u l a t i v e r e a s o n s a r e o f t e n urged by t h e s e l l e r i n s u p p o r t of t h e v a l u a t i o n claimed. Some c a s e s s a y t h e owner is e n t i t l e d t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t use t o which it is adapted, T h i s is t r u e so f a r a s such adapta- t i o n a f f e c t s t h e market v a l u e . But t h e proper i n q u i r y is, n o t what is t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r any p a r t i c u l a r u s e , b u t what is it worth on t h e market, i n view of its adap- t a t i o n f o r t h a t o r any o t h e r use.' " S p e c u l a t i v e u s e s , r e m o t e and c o n j e c t u r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a r e n o t t o be t a k e n i n t o con- s i d e r a t i o n , a s t h e land must, a t t h e d a t e of t h e summons, have been ' a v a i l a b l e ' f o r t h e more v a l u a b l e use shown . , . "The r u l e announced i n t h e Warren and F o r b i s Cases, above, must be a p p l i e d i n t h e l i g h t of t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n t h a t c o m p e n s a t i o n must be determined on t h e b a s i s of t h e market v a l u e of t h e land a t t h e d a t e of t h e summons, and, while t h e owner is e n t i t l e d t o show t h e most v a l u a b l e use f o r which t h e land is a v a i l a b l e , t h i s is merely f o r t h e purpose of f i x i n g t h e a c t u a l h i g h e s t market v a l u e a t t h e time s p e c i f i e d , and d i s c u s s i o n of u s e s t o which t h e land is n o t then p u t is b u t s a l e s t a l k , p e r s u a s i v e o n l y i n s o f a r a s it would convince a p r o s p e c t i v e purchaser t h a t t h e p r i c e asked is r e a s o n a b l e under a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a ~ ~ c e s shown; t h e j u r y s t a n d s i n t h e p o s i t i o n of t h e purchaser. For t h i s reason it is s a i d t h e t e s t is, 'What is t h e market v a l u e of t h e land condemned f o r any commer- c i a l v a l u e [use?] of its own i n t h e immediate p r e s e n t , o r i n reasonable a n t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e n e a r f u t u r e ? . , ." 288 P. a t 185-186. The most important language from H o b l i t t a p p l i c a b l e h e r e is, " t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a purpose c a p a b l e of being used f o r t h a t purpose, . . . t h e land must be shown t o have been marketable a t t h a t time f o r t h e purpose s t a t e d . . ." Here, t h e land was u n f i t f o r t h e purpose s t a t e d by appel- l a n t s because t h e r e were flood zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s which prevented t h e land from being used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l purposes. Also, t h e r e was no i n d i c a t i o n from t h e record t h a t t h e s e r e s t r i c t i o n s w i l l be l i f t e d b e f o r e t h e p r o j e c t i s completed. The second i s s u e r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s concerns t h e procedural q u e s t i o n of who h a s t h e burden of proof i n a d r a i n a g e d i s t r i c t condemnation a c t i o n and i n what o r d e r should it be p r e s e n t e d , I t is e v i d e n t from t h e record t h a t t h e a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t r a i s e t h i s i s s u e a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l . T h e r e a r e no c i t a t i o n s n e c e s s a r y , f o r i t i s a x i o m a t i c t h a t u n l e s s an i s s u e is r a i s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l it w i l l n o t be addressed by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t u n l e s s t h e i s s u e r a i s e d is of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l import. The judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court is a f f i r m e d . W e concur: Chief J u s t i c e