Title: MORRISON v HIGBEE
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 82-507
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: June 30, 1983

PETER A. MORRISON, e t a l . , P l a i n t i f f s , ERWIN F. HIGBEE, e t a i . , Defendants. ..................................... T H O ~ ~ S MILLER AND LEWIS IIUGKES, Appellants, V S . JAMES E. ROBERTSON and OPA M E G E E and ROSE M. MEGEE, I n t e r v e n o r s arid Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , i n and f o r t h e County of Yadison, The honorable Pi. W. Lessley, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Korrow & Sedivy; Terry Sckaplow, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: !100re, Rice, OIConnell and Refling; avid C. ?.loon, Bozeman, Montana - - Submitted on B r i e f s : March 17, 1983 Decided: June 30, 1983 Mr. J u s t i c e L . C. Gulbrandson d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Water u s e r s , M i l l e r and Hughes, appeal from a judgment o r d e r i n g them t o remove t r e e s and brush from along t h e i r i r r i g a - t i o n d i t c h e s and t o a l l o w respondents, Robertson and Megee, t o r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n t h e d i t c h e s . The judgment was e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l District, Madison County. The two p a r a l l e l d i t c h e s i n q u e s t i o n d i v e r t water o u t of South Meadow Creek, which rises i n South Meadow Creek Lake i n t h e Beaverhead N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , flows e a s t e r l y , and t h e n empties i n t o Ennis Lake. The d i t c h used by a p p e l l a n t s , M i l l e r and Hughes, is t h e f i r s t d i t c h of t h e two p a r a l l e l d i t c h e s t o t a k e water o u t of South Meadow Creek. The second d i t c h , s e v e r a l f e e t below t h e Miller-Hughes d i t c h , is used by respondents, Robertson and Megee. A p p e l l a n t Miller d i v e r t s h i s water o u t of t h e upper d i t c h . The two d i t c h e s t h e n meet c a r r y i n g t h e water f o r Megee, Hughes, and Robertson. A f t e r t h e two d i t c h e s meet, respondent Megee's d i t c h d i v e r t s water a c r o s s M i l l e r ' s land t o Megee's land. The water remaining i n t h e main d i t c h c o n t i n u e s t h e n p a s t Hughes' house and t o R o b e r t s o n ' s land. Robertson is t h e l a s t water u s e r on t h e d i t c h system. The p r e s e n t appeal a r i s e s from t h e District C o u r t ' s o r d e r r e q u i r i n g removal of mature t r e e s and brush along t h e banks of t h e d i t c h e s . A p p e l l a n t s , Hughes and M i l l e r , c l a i m t h a t t h e d i t c h e s w i l l wash away i f t h e brush is removed. Respondents, Robertson and Megee, c l a i m t h a t t h e brush and t r e e s impede d i t c h maintenance and consume l a r g e amounts of w a t e r . To understand how t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y a r o s e , w e must look t o a d i s s a t i s f i e d water u s e r ' s a c t i o n begun i n 1977. On J u n e 22, 1977, two downstream water u s e r s on South Meadow Creek f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t t h e water commissioner, seeking proper d i s t r i b u t i o n of water under a 1912 d e c r e e . The complainants a l l e g e d t h a t t h e water measuring d e v i c e s upstream were d e f e c t i v e , improperly p l a c e d , o r locked, t h e r e b y p r e v e n t i n g proper d i s t r i b u t i o n of w a t e r . Under s e c t i o n 85-5-301, MCA, t h e Honorable Frank E. B l a i r o r d e r e d a hearing t o determine t h e proper enforcement of t h e 1912 d e c r e e . A f t e r t h e h e a r i n g , Judge B l a i r ordered t h e appointment of C h a r l e s C. Bowman a s c o u r t r e f e r e e . On A p r i l 20, 1979, t h e D i s t r i c t Court adopted t h e recommen- d a t i o n s of t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e and f i l e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , conclu- s i o n s of law, and a d e c r e e r e q u i r i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , t h a t a p p e l l a n t s and respondents remove brush from t h e i r d i t c h banks. The c l e r k of c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h a t c o p i e s of t h e f i n d i n g s , conclu- s i o n s and d e c r e e had been s e n t t o a l l i n t e r e s t e d p a r t i e s . N o document l a b e l e d " n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment" was f i l e d o r mailed by t h e c l e r k of c o u r t . I n t h e f a l l of 1979, Judge B l a i r asked t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether t h e p a r t i e s had complied w i t h h i s o r d e r . I n A p r i l 1980, Judge B l a i r s e n t l e t t e r s t o t h e p a r t i e s p o i n t i n g o u t d e f i c i e n c i e s found by t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e . I n p a r t i c u l a r , Judge B l a i r informed M i l l e r and Hughes t h a t brush had not been c u t a l o n g t h e Miller-Hughes d i t c h . On May 5 , 1980, i n response t o t h e l e t t e r from Judge B l a i r , M i l l e r and Hughes f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of o r d e r and f i n d i n g s . M i l l e r and Hughes claimed t h a t t h e d i t c h banks would wash o u t i f brush were removed. They a l s o moved f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n of t h e judge. The Honorable W. W. Lessley assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n and s e t a hearing on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r October 1, 1980. On September 24, 1980, Robertson and Megee p e t i t i o n e d t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e proceedings f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e 1979 o r d e r . A p r e - t r i a l hearing was not held u n t i l November 1 9 , 1981, a f t e r which Judge L e s s l e y appointed a Water Master t o hold a hearing on t h e merits of t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n . On A p r i l 23, 1982, Robertson and Megee f i l e d a motion t o d i s m i s s t h e p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n , on t h e grounds t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n was a motion t o amend judgment and t h a t t h e t i m e l i m i t s of Rule 5 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., had not been followed. The D i s t r i c t Court denied t h e motion and set t h e d a t e f o r a hearing b e f o r e t h e Water Master. On May 11 and May 1 9 , 1982, t h e Water Master conducted h e a r i n g s . She heard testimony, accepted e x h i b i t s , and p e r s o n a l l y viewed t h e d i t c h e s . On J u l y 1 9 , 1982, t h e Water Master f i l e d her f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and d e c r e e . She found t h a t t h e brush a l o n g t h e banks impeded maintenance of t h e d i t c h e s . She s t a t e d i n her memorandum t h a t l i t t l e evidence was presented t o show t h a t t h e brush prevented e r o s i o n of t h e d i t c h banks. Most impor- t a n t l y , she found t h a t t h e aggregate e f f e c t of t h e brush l i n i n g t h e d i t c h banks r e s u l t e d i n consumption of l a r g e amounts of water which would o t h e r w i s e be a v a i l a b l e f o r o t h e r water u s e r s on t h e South Meadow Creek. She t h e n ordered t h e p a r t i e s t o develop a s c h e d u l e of maintenance t o remove t h e mature brush from t h e s i d e s of t h e d i t c h e s , e x c e p t i n g t h e l a r g e t r e e s l o c a t e d i n t h e Hughes' y a r d . On J u l y 16, 1982, t h e District Court adopted t h e Water M a s t e r ' s d e c i s i o n . No n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d . On J u l y 30, M i l l e r and Hughes moved t o amend t h e M a s t e r ' s f i n d i n g s under Rules 5 2 ( b ) and 5 3 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. On August 2 , Robertson and Megee moved t o amend t h e judgment under Rule 59 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P. On August 16 and August 30, t h e motions were argued. The D i s t r i c t Court asked f o r b r i e f s and t h e m a t t e r was deemed sub- m i t t e d September 9 , 1982. On September 20, 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t Court f i l e d an amended judgment and memorandum. On October 8 , 1982, a f i n a l judgment was f i l e d . A n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i n a l l y f i l e d on October 1 2 , 1982. M i l l e r and Hughes f i l e d a n o t i c e of appeal November 1 0 , 1982. The t h r e e main i s s u e s on appeal a r e : 1. whether t h e appeal is t i m e l y ; 2. whether t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e i n i t i a l l y had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o recommend removal of t h e b r u s h ; and 3. whether t h e evidence s u p p o r t s t h e o r d e r t h a t t h e brush should be removed. Respondents have made s e v e r a l s t r o n g arguments regarding t h e t i m e l i n e s s of t h i s appeal. They c l a i m t h a t t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g of Judge B l a i r ' s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law, and d e c r e e by t h e clerk of c o u r t c o n s t i t u t e d n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment w i t h i n t h e meaning of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. They t h e n a r g u e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n f i l e d one year l a t e r was a motion t o amend judgment and n o t t i m e l y under Rule 5 9 ( g ) , M.R.Civ.P. Even i f t h e p e t i t i o n was timely, r e s p o n d e n t s argue t h a t s i n c e t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t n o t i c e d f o r hearing o r heard w i t h i n t h e time l i m i t a t i o n s of Rule 5 9 ( d ) , it was deemed denied a s of May 15, 1980. The time f o r appeal t h e n expired J u n e 1 7 , 1980. L a s t l y , respondents argue t h a t t h e motion t o amend judgment f i l e d on J u l y 30, 1982, was a l s o n o t heard w i t h i n t h e time r e q u i r e m e n t s of Rule 5 9 ( d ) , and was t h e r e f o r e deemed denied on August 1 0 , 1982. The time f o r appeal expired t h e n on September 1 2 , 1982. Respondents' p r o c e d u r a l arguments must f a i l simply because no n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d u n t i l October 1 2 , 1982. The n o t i c e of appeal f i l e d on Novemer 1 0 , 1982, was t h e r e f o r e t i m e l y . I f a n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment had been f i l e d , respondents' argument t h a t t h e time f o r appeal began t o run when p o s t - t r i a l motions were deemed denied would be compelling, e s p e c i a l l y i n l i g h t of t h e c a s e s s t a t i n g t h a t a D i s t r i c t Court l a c k s j u r i s d i c - t i o n a f t e r t h e motions a r e deemed denied. See Winn v. Winn (1982) I Mont. , 651 P.2d 51, 39 St.Rep. 1831, and c a s e s c i t e d t h e r e i n . Moreover, t h e adoption of respondents' argument would l e a d t o a fundamental c o n t r a d i c t i o n . I f t h e t h i r t y - d a y time f o r appeal began t o run a f t e r t h e p o s t - t r i a l motions were deemed d e n i e d , t h e n t h e D i s t r i c t Court would l o s e j u r i s d i c t i o n p r i o r t o its n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment. T h i s Court has c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t it is t h e f i l i n g of t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment t h a t begins t h e running of t h e t i m e l i m i t a t i o n s f o r f i l i n g a n o t i c e of a p p e a l . Haywood v. S e d i l l o ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 101, 535 P.2d 1014; P i e r c e Packing Co. v . D i s t r i c t Court ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 177 Mont. 50, 579 P.2d 760. T h i s r u l e h a s been t e c h n i c a l l y a p p l i e d i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e proper n o t i c e and a n understanding of when t h e time f o r appeal begins t o run. I n b o t h Haywood and P i e r c e Packing, we concluded t h a t a c t u a l n o t i c e was n o t s u f f i c i e n t . A s i n P i e r c e Packing, we a r e a g a i n led t o a t e c h n i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e r u l e , and f i n d t h a t t h e appeal is t i m e l y . One f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n has i n f l u e n c e d our c o n c l u s i o n t h a t t h e appeal is timely. T h i s a c t i o n began under s e c t i o n 85-5-301, MCA, a s a d i s s a t i s f i e d water u s e r ' s a c t i o n . The procedure governing such an a c t i o n is q u i t e i n f o r m a l . No formal response p l e a d i n g s o r motions a r e r e q u i r e d . See A l l e n v. Wampler ( 1 9 6 4 ) , 1 4 3 Mont. 486, 491, 392 P.2d 82, 85, q u o t i n g Gans and K l e i n Investment Co. v. Sanford ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 91 Mont. 512, 8 P.2d 808; and S a i n v. Montana Power Co. ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 84 F.2d 126. S i n c e s t a n d a r d t r i a l p r o c e d u r e s a r e not followed i n t h e s e i n f o r m a l , summary pro- c e e d i n g s , t h e time l i m i t s governing p o s t - t r i a l p r o c e d u r e s should n o t be s t r i c t l y a p p l i e d . A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e lacked t h e a u t h o r i t y t o recommend t h e removal of brush along t h e d i t c h banks. S i n c e t h e D i s t r i c t Court adopted t h e r e f e r e e ' s f i n d i n g s , a p p e l l a n t s a r e a c t u a l l y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A s noted above, t h i s a c t i o n began a s a d i s s a t i s f i e d water u s e r ' s a c t i o n provided f o r i n s e c t i o n 85-5-301, MCA. The purpose o f a d i s s a t i s f i e d water u s e r ' s a c t i o n is t o e n f o r c e t h e o r i g i n a l d e c r e e , and o v e r s e e t h e water commissioner's d i s t r i b u t i o n of w a t e r through p r o p e r l y maintained d i t c h e s , headgates, and o t h e r w a t e r measuring d e v i c e s . See s e c t i o n s 85-5-301, and 85-5-302, MCA; Luppold v. L e w i s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 172 Mont. 280, 563 P.2d 538; and A l l e n , s u p r a . Here, t h e D i s t r i c t Court ordered t h e removal of trees and brush on t h e d i t c h banks i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e d i t c h maintenance and t o conserve t h e water absorbed by t h e t r e e s and b r u s h f o r o t h e r water u s e r s . The District C o u r t ' s o r d e r does n o t h i n g more t h a n enhance t h e method of d i s t r i b u t i o n by o r d e r i n g a w e l l maintained d i t c h system. The evidence s u p p o r t s t h e Water M a s t e r ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t remo- v a l of t h e mature brush and t r e e s would not cause s i g n i f i c a n t e r o s i o n . The evidence a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s t h a t c e r t a i n b r u s h and trees need t o be removed t o e n s u r e proper d i t c h main- t e n a n c e . The District C o u r t ' s judgment t We concur: