Title: MONTANA POWER CO v CHARTER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13277
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: December 28, 1976

No. 13277 I N THE S U P R E M E C O U R T O F THE STATE O F M O N T A N A 1976 THE M O N T A N A P O W E R C O M P A N Y , a Montana corporation, and P U G E T S O U N D P O W E R & LIGHT C O M P A N Y , P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, -vs - BOYD C H A R T E R and ANNE G. CHARTER, h i s wife; D R E V S F A R M I N G CORPORATION, a Montana corpora tion; PHYLLIS 0 ' CONNOR REES , B E T T Y o'CONNOR GREENE, JANE O'CONNOR L O N G and GENEVIEVE O'CONNOR CARLISLE, Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Graybill, Ostrem, Warner and Crotty, Great F a l l s , Montana Gregory T. Warner argued, Great F a l l s , Montana For Respondents: Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and Gallagher, Billings, Montana Thomas N. Kelley argued, Billings, Montana Submitted: October 20, 1976 Decided : DEC 2 8 1976 M r . J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly delivered the Opinion of the Court. This is an appeal by defendant landowners from orders of preliminary condemnation and possession granted t o p l a i n t i f f s by the d i s t r i c t court, Yellowstone County. Each of the condemnation actions presented f o r appeal were i n i t i a t e d by p l a i n t i f f s Montana Power Company and Puget Sound Power & Light Company pursuant t o T i t l e 93, Chapter 99, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. The purpose of the actions was t o gain easements and r i g h t of way f o r construction of a 230-500 KV e l e c t r i c transmission l i n e t o serve the p l a i n t i f f s ' coal-fired generating plants a t Colstrip, Montana. Previous t o f i l i n g the condemnation complaints i n d i s t r i c t court, p l a i n t i f f s obtained a c e r t i f i c a t e of "environmental compatibility and public need" from the S t a t e Board of Natural Resources and Conservation i n accordance with the Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g Act, T i t l e 70, Chapter 8, Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. Upon motion, the d i s t r i c t court ordered consolidation of the three condemnation actions with a "necessity hearing" scheduled f o r July 8, 1975. A t p r e t r i a l conference on t h a t date t h e court decided it was f i r s t necessary t o determine whether, under the present Montana law, it was proper f o r a court t o conduct a 1 I necessity hearingff a t a l l with respect t o a u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y of the type involved. Accordingly, counsel f o r the p a r t i e s o r a l l y stipulated t o c e r t a i n f a c t s so t h i s issue could be resolved. O n December 12, 1975, the d i s t r i c t court entered i t s findings of f a c t and conclusions of law wherein it determined t h a t the necessity f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r power l i n e , i t s location, and land t o be taken and the area thereof were matters controlled by t h e - 2 - Montana Major Facility Siting Act and thus within the responsibility of the State Board of Natural Resources a d Conservation. Holding that the only issues properly before it were public use and just compensation, the district court ruled the transmission line to be a public use with just compensation to be determined at a future time. Therefore, the district court entered a preliminary condemna- tion order on December 12, 1975. On the same day plaintiffs paid into court the amount of compensation claimed by defendants in their answers to the plaintiffs' condemnation complaints. The district court then entered an order granting plaintiffs possession and use of the lands in question. Defendants on December 31, 1975, moved the district court to stay the orders of preliminary condemnation and possession. The motion was denied by the district court on January 20, 1976. Defendants appeal from the district court's orders of preliminary condemnation and possession. On appeal defendants contend the orders of preliminary condemnation and possession were improper because all issues of preliminary condemnation for the power line were controlled by the eminent domain statute, section 93-9901 et seq., R.C.M. 1947, and thus were subject to hearing before the district court. However, we believe the proper disposition of this appeal is controlled by the course of events subsequent to the district court's denial of defendants' motion for a stay. First, by virtue of the district court's order of possession granted in accordance with section 93-9920, R.C.M. 1947, plaintiffs were entitled to "use and possess" the defendants' lands. We note that this right has been exercised to the point where the transmission towers and lines are now completed on those lands be- longing to defendants. - 3 - Second, noting t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s denial of the defendants' motion f o r a stay of proceedings, we find nothing i n t h e record t o indicate any further e f f o r t by the defendants t o preserve t h e s t a t u s quo pending disposition of t h i s appeal. Since the very a c t s which defendants sought t o enjoin a r e now accomplished f a c t , we hold the issue before t h i s Court t o be moot and thus not within the province of t h i s Court. Adkins v. City of Livingston, 121Mont. 528, 194 P.2d 238. The f a c t t h a t no party raised t h e issue of mootness on appeal does not a l t e r t h i s necessary conclusion. Fox v. Hacker, 68 Mont. 413, 220 P. 749. Therefore, t h i s J s t i c e s . u Hon. Jack .L. ,,Green : , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e Wesley Castles.