Opinion ID: 876021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: certificate of survey of a 44.293 acre parcel located in the east half of section 13, t2s, r4e, pmm, gallatin county, montana

Text: It plainly shows that the single parcel surveyed has an area composed of 44.293 acres. In the righthand corner of the instrument appellant certified that he made the survey and it is correctly described by the document. In addition, appellant certified that the survey was made in compliance with applicable state statutes. There is no doubt that appellant's docment is a certificate of survey and not a subdivision plat as defined by the Act. Its purpose is to establish boundaries and the property description for a deed on an entire single parcel which contains an area greater than the 10 acre requirement established by section 11-3861(12), prior to its amendment to 20 acres in 1974. Furthermore, the proffered document contains no graphical representation of a subdivision showing the division of land into lots, parcels, streets, and alleys, and other divisions and dedications within the meaning of section 11-3861(6), which sets forth the definition of a plat. Accordingly, we hold that respondent had a clear legal duty to accept appellant's document for filing since it contained no evidence whatsoever that would bring it within the definition of a subdivision, and therefore required no review by the city county planning board prior to filing. The judgment of the district court is reversed to allow appellant a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to perform his clear legal duty in filing appellant's certificate of survey. In his second issue appellant argues that it is improper for the clerk and recorder to assess a $20 reviewing fee. We agree. The Montana Subdivision and Platting Act contains no authority for the assessment of a reviewing fee, prior to the filing of a certificate of survey. The sole statute dealing with fees is section 11-3868, which provides: The governing body may establish reasonable fees to be paid by the subdivider to defray the expense of reviewing subdivision plats.  (Emphasis supplied). Section 11-3868 is clearly not applicable where a certificate of survey is submitted for filing. Under statutory authority, respondent is required to charge a specific filing fee for filing instruments. Section 25-231, R.C.M. 1947. However, there is no provision that would justify the assessment of a reviewing fee prior to the filing of a certificate of survey. Neither the county clerk and recorder nor any other governmental authority may charge an additional fee not prescribed by statute, or otherwise authorized. 76 C.J.S. Records § 20, provides: The amount of the fee for recording is generally fixed by statute, and only such fees as are authorized may be charged. The fee fixed by statute for filing a paper covers every act necessary to be done in order to complete a legal filing thereof, and no fee may be charged for doing any thing in connection with the paper not necessary to a valid filing.   . The third issue on appeal is  Is this appeal moot? Respondent argues this appeal is moot because: 1. Section 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, was amended in 1974 to provide for the prerecording review of certificates of survey. 2. Since this action was initiated a surveyor has been hired to replace appellant and he has allegedly filed a certificate of survey on the same property. To fully understand respondent's first contention, we turn to section 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, prior to its 1974 amendment: (1) All final subdivision plats shall be reviewed for errors and omissions in calculation or drafting by an examining land surveyor   . When the survey data shown on the plat meet the conditions set forth by or pursuant to this act, the examining surveyor shall so certify in a printed or stamped certificate on the plat; such certificate shall be signed by him. (Emphasis supplied). In 1974, after this action was initiated, section 11-3867 was amended to provide: (1) The governing body may require that final subdivision plats and certificates of survey be reviewed for errors and omissions in calculation or drafting by an examining land surveyor before recording with the county clerk and recorder. When the survey data shown on the plat or certificate of survey meet the conditions set forth by or pursuant to this act, the examining land surveyor shall so certify in a printed or stamped certificate on the plat or certificate of survey; such certificate shall be signed by him.   . (Emphasis supplied). We agree with respondent that section 11-3867 as amended, provides for the prerecording review of certificates of survey. However, we apply the law as it existed when this action was brought. Consequently, we cannot consider the effect of the amended statute. This appeal is not moot because of the 1974 amendment to section 11-3867. Peterson v. Livestock Commission, 120 Mont. 140, 181 P.2d 152. Respondent also argues this appeal is moot because a certificate of survey has allegedly been filed by one Lewis Tout, a surveyor hired to replace appellant after he was prevented from filing his certificate of survey. Again, we disagree that this alleged fact renders this matter moot. Section 11-3872(1)(a), provides that a registered surveyor is compelled to prepare and file a certificate of survey if the survey (a) provides material evidence not appearing on any map filed with the county clerk and recorder or contained in the records of the United States bureau of land management. Appellant argues the certificate of survey filed by Tout is not identical to the survey he attempted to file and that his survey discloses evidence material not appearing on any map filed with the county clerk and recorder. Assuming that Tout did file a certificate of survey, a fact which does not appear in the record before us, it is respondent's duty to demonstrate the two surveys are in fact identical, and that it is not necessary for appellant to file his survey in order to make this matter moot. This respondent has not done. Therefore, respondent's second argument in regard to mootness must fail. The judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to grant the writ of mandamus and award attorney fees to appellant in the amount of $1,000. JAMES T. HARRISON, C.J., and HASWELL, CASTLES and DALY, JJ., concur.