Title: STATE EX REL CHRISTIAN v MILLER
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 13019
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: February 4, 1976

No. 13019 I N THE SUPREME C O U R T O F T H E STATE OF M O N T A N A STATE O F M O N T A N A ex r e 1 CHRISTIAN, SPRING, SIELBACH & ASSOCIATES, a Montana corporation, and JAMES B. SPRING, individually, P l a i n t i f f s and P e t i t i o n e r s , BONNIE MILLER, Powell County Clerk and Recorder; and NEWMAN RAYMOND, SANDY REIERSON and HERMAN N. SMETS, Powell County Commissioners, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Third J u d i c i a l District, Honorable Robert Boyd, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For P l a i n t i f f s : Poore, McKenzie, Roth, Robischon & Robinson, Butte, Montana Urban L. Roth argued, Butte, Montana Daniel Wing argued, Butte, Montana For Respondents: James H. Goetz argued, Bozeman, Montana James Masar appeared, Deer Lodge, Montana Submitted: November 6, 1975 Decided: Ff-.j. 2 ,j,g Filed : M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison delivered t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Appellant James B. Spring of the firm Christian, Spring, Sielbach & Associates, f i l e d an action on June 27, 1974, against the Clerk and Recorder and Commissioners of Powell County, seeking t o compel by w r i t of mandamus the acceptance and recordation of a 1 I c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". Hearing was had i n l a t e July 1974 and judgment f o r respondents was entered i n t h e d i s t r i c t court, Powell County i n October 1974. Several days before t h i s action arose, t h e Powell County Board of County Commissioners met a t special session t o pass a 1 t resolution termed a Temporary Interim Zoning Regulation" pursuant t o section 16-4711, R.C.M. 1947, which provides: 11 Interim zoning map o r regulation. I f a county i s conducting, o r i n good f a i t h intends t o conduct studies within a reasonable time, o r has held o r is holding a hearing f o r the purpose of considering a master plan o r zoning regulations o r an amendment, extension, o r addition t o e i t h e r pursuant t o t h i s chapter, the board of county commissioners i n order t o promote t h e public health, safety, morals, and general welfare may adopt a s an emergency measure a temporary interim zoning map o r temporary interim zoning regulation, the purpose of which s h a l l be t c c l a s s i f y and regulate uses and r e l a t e d matters a s c o n s t i t u t e s t h e emergency. Such interim resolution s h a l l be limited t o one (1) year from the date it becomes effective. The board of county commissioners may extend such interim resolution f o r one (1) yearn but not more than one (1) such extension may be made. The regulation s t a t e d t h a t a master plan was o r would be under consideration within a reasonable time t o cover a l l p r i v a t e land i n t h e North Powell S o i l Conservation D i s t r i c t i n the Big Black- foot drainage area of Powell County. Prior t o the passage of t h a t regulation, Spring contacted Bonnie J. Miller, the Powell County c l e r k and recorder, t o inquire whether a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey regarding t h i s area would be accepted f o r recordation. Spring was advised the c e r t i f i c a t e would be recorded i f it properly complied with Montana law. Spring then directed h i s employees t o survey the land i n question and on June 27, 1974, presented t h e r e s u l t i n g c e r t i f i c a t e of survey f o r re- cordation, along with the s t a t u t o r y recording fee. By t h a t date, t h e i t e r i m regulation had been passed and the c l e r k and recorder sought advice a s t o i t s e f f e c t . She was informed by l e t t e r of the Powell Cdunty attorney t h a t : "* > k * the i n t e n t of the resolution was t o prevent further subdivision i n the north Powell Soil Conser- vation area * * * f o r an interim period while f u r t h e r studies could be made. While the f i l i n g of a C e r t i f i - c a t e of Survey does not necessarily imply an i n t e n t t o subdivide, i t i s m y opinion t h a t no other purpose i s served by such f i l i n g and i n order t o implement and execute the purpose and i n t e n t of the resolution it i s m y recommendation t h a t you not accept any C e r t i f i c a t e s of Survey which may be tendered t o you f o r recording o r f i l i n g u n t i l the expiration of the 90 day moratorium which may be extended. I' Guided by t h i s opinion, t h e c l e r k and recorder rejected both t h e .. " ., ,- c e r t i f i c a t e and t h e recording f e e when spring tendered them f o r f i l i n g . The p a r t i e s do not dispute t h a t t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of survey complied i n a l l technical respects with t h e requirements of Montana law, o r t h a t the notice provisions of section 16-4705, R.C.M. 1947, were not followed by t h e board of county commissioners i n adopting the regulation. It i s f u r t h e r admitted t h e document involved here I 1 i s a c e r t i f i c a t e of surveyw within the meaning of section 11-3861, R.C.M. 1947, and not a "subdivision plat" a s defined by that s t a t u t e . For the purposes of t h i s appeal we accept the county attorney's advice t h a t t h i s c e r t i f i c a t e of survey has no other purpose. Spring challenges the v a l i d i t y of the temporary interim zoning resolution f o r a variety of reasons. But f o r purposes of t h i s appeal, we need only discuss the undisputed f a i l u r e of the county board of commissioners t o comply with the n o t i c e and hearing requirements s e t f o r t h i n section 16-4705, R.C.M. 1947. I n Bryant Development Association v. Dagel, M o n t . , 531 P.2d 1320,1324, 32 St.Rep. 213, t h i s Court recognized t h e d i r e c t a p p l i c a b i l i t y of section 16-4705 t o county action authorized by section 16-4711: "1n viewing Chapter 47, T i r l e 16, R.C.M. 1947, as a whole, i t i s c l e a r t h a t section 16-4711, providing f o r the enactment of emergency zoning regulations, is governed by the provisions of section 16-4705, I providing f o r notice and hearing i n the adoption o r amendment of zoning regulations."' Respondents recognize t h a t Bryant is dispositive and controlling of t h i s issue, but urge the reconsideration and reversal of the Bryant r u l e . In support respondents c i t e d several cases from other jurisdictions. These cases hold, i n the i n t e r e s t of preserving the s t a t u s quo under circumstances s u f f i c i e n t l y urgent t o warrant an emergency resolution, t h a t t h e due process require- ments need not be followed u n t i l a permanent ordinance i s under consideration. Metro Realty v. County of E l Dorado, 222 C.A.2d 508, 35 Ca1,Rptr. 480; McCurley v. City of E l Reno, 138 Okla. 92, 280 P. 467. W e recognize the underlying policy which engendered the r u l e a s announced by such cases a s Metro Realty - and McCurley. But the law of Montana has been c l e a r l y and recently s e t f o r t h i n Bryant. W e believe it t o be the b e t t e r r u l e , and the r u l e supported by the majority of a u t h o r i t i e s . City of Miami Beach v. State, Fla, 108 S.2d 614, cert.den., 1 1 1 S.2d 437; Lancaster Development, Ltd. v. Village of River Forest, 84 Ill.App.2d 395, 228 N.E.2d 526, 30 ALR3d 1190; Krajenke Buick Sales v. Kopkowski, 322 Mich. 250, 33 N.W.2d 781; State ex r e l . Kramer v. Schwartz, 336 M o . 932, 82 S.W.2d 63. In Montana, the salutary s t a t u t o r y scheme comprised of the Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, sections 11-3859 e t seq., R.C.M. 1947, and such provisions a s section 16-4711, R.C.M. 1947, must be tempered by t h e fundamental r i g h t t o notice and the opportun- i t y t o be heard. The d i s t r i c t court erred when it denied appellant's p e t i t i o n f o r a w r i t of mandamus. This p a r t i c u l a r temporary interim zoning regulation is n u l l and void f o r the f a i l u r e t o observe the proper procedures upon i t s enactment. The cause is remanded t o t h e district court with directions t o grant a t t o r n e y fees. ustice / / / W e Concur: I ' / \