Opinion ID: 885602
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 25 Is the injunctive language in the arbitrator's award so broadly written that it effectively takes the Kuehls' property without due process and unconstitutionally restricts their access to the courts? ¶ 26 The Kuehls argue that language in the Final Arbitration Award denies them the right to protect their property and prevents them from accessing the courts as guaranteed under Article II, Section 16, of the Montana Constitution. The Langemeiers counter that the disputed road does not belong to the Kuehls. Because the property is a public road, the Langemeiers allege that the Kuehls do not have an interest that allows them to claim a constitutional violation. First American contends that the language of the arbitrator's award is not overly broad and that the Kuehls did not establish grounds for vacating or modifying the injunctive language. ¶ 27 The final arbitration award contains the following language: James R. and Robert F. Kuehl, and their heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns, are prohibited and enjoined from commencing or prosecuting any action or proceeding, whether formal, informal, administrative or judicial, that arises from or is related to the easterly 30 feet of Plat No. 1685 or to the other acts, omissions or incidents described in any of the pleadings or documents filed in Carbon County Cause No. DV 95-02 or in the briefs and exhibits submitted in this arbitration; or that in any way challenges or questions the ownership of the easterly 30 feet of Pla[t] No. 1685. ¶ 28 The District Court found that prohibiting the Kuehls from commencing or prosecuting an action or proceeding regarding property in which they have no interest does not violate their due process rights nor improperly restrict their access to the courts. We agree. As the District Court pointed out, the language of the award was designed to stave off further malicious and reprehensible behavior by the Kuehls. The injunctive language does this in two different ways. ¶ 29 First, the injunctive language prohibits the Kuehls from bringing an action that arises from or is related to the easterly 30 feet of Plat No. 1685. It also prevents the Kuehls from bringing an action that in any way challenges or questions the ownership of the easterly 30 feet of Pla[t] No. 1685. The Kuehls claim that this language effectively takes property from them without due process of law. Their argument ignores that the Memorandum of Understanding, the Settlement Agreement and the Final Arbitration Award all establish that the Kuehls do not have a property interest in the disputed property. The Kuehls cannot claim the language deprives them of the use of their property when the property is not their's to use. To prevail on their due process claim, the Kuehls must have a definite property interest and show that such interest was, under color of state law, abridged without appropriate process. See ISC Distributors, Inc. v. Trevor (1995), 273 Mont. 185, 191, 903 P.2d 170, 173; see also Board of Regents v. Roth (1972), 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705, 33 L.Ed.2d 548. Because they do not have a property interest in the disputed roadway, the Kuehls' due process claim is without merit. ¶ 30 Second, the language of the Arbitration Award prohibits the Kuehls from litigating matters related to the disputed roadway or described in the Arbitration Action or proceedings. The Kuehls claim that this language denies them access to the courts. We, like the District Court, do not read the language so broadly. ¶ 31 The injunctive language seeks only to restrain the Kuehls from contesting matters previously decided. The Kuehls have already enjoyed access to the courts regarding these matters as this dispute has wound its way through two arbitrations, approval by the District Court and now an appeal before us. While Article II, Section 16, of the Montana Constitution guarantees every person access to the courts, it does not grant a person license to relitigate a cause or to burden the resources of the court with successive claims. See State v. Perry (1988), 232 Mont. 455, 463, 758 P.2d 268, 273. As we have recited in the past, judicial economy dictates restrictive limitations on reruns. Coleman v. State (1981), 194 Mont. 428, 439, 633 P.2d 624, 630, cert. denied (1982), 455 U.S. 983, 102 S.Ct. 1492, 71 L.Ed.2d 693, (citing United States ex rel. Townsend v. Twomey (7th Cir.1971), 452 F.2d 350, 357, cert. denied (1972), 409 U.S. 854, 93 S.Ct. 190, 34 L.Ed.2d 98). ¶ 32 The Respondents presented a request for this injunctive language to the arbitrator for his determination. The language restrains the Kuehls from pursuing repetitive claims previously resolved by the Settlement Agreement concerning property in which they have no interest. Even if the arbitrator wrote the injunction more broadly than a court of law or equity would have written it, we will not vacate the award. See § 27-5-312(2), MCA; Nelson, ¶ 18. We thus conclude that the injunctive language was not so broadly written that it either effectively takes the Kuehls' property without due process or unconstitutionally restricts their access to the courts. ¶ 33 Affirmed. We Concur: JAMES C. NELSON, PATRICIA COTTER and W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JJ.