Opinion ID: 886881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 11 Does Weinert's failure to comply with Rule 38, M.R.App.P., bar her claim that § 70-16-302, MCA, was enacted in an unconstitutional manner? ¶ 12 The title of the bill in which the language ultimately codified in § 70-16-302, MCA, was adopted states: AN ACT REVISING THE LAWS RELATING TO A PROPERTY OWNER'S LIABILITY TOWARD PERSONS WHO MAKE RECREATIONAL USE OF THE PROPERTY; AND AMENDING SECTIONS 70-16-301 AND XX-XX-XXX, MCA. See 1995 Mont. Laws 914. Weinert contends that if § 70-16-302, MCA, was intended to provide immunity for governmental units, the title of the bill was required to specifically indicate that it provides immunity for governmental units. She claims that, because it does not do so, the title misled legislators and the public as to the subject embraced in the bill, in violation of Article V, Section 11(3) of the Montana Constitution. ¶ 13 We do not reach the substance of Weinert's argument. Rule 38, M.R.App.P., requires a party challenging the constitutionality of an act of the Montana Legislature in an action before this Court in which neither the state nor an agency or officer of the state is a party to give written notice to the Court and the Montana Attorney General of the existence of the constitutional issue. Weinert failed to give notice pursuant to Rule 38. Although she filed a notice with the Attorney General at the District Court level, as required by Rule 24(d), M.R.Civ.P., she failed to file a notice with this Court or with the Attorney General either contemporaneously with her notice of appeal or since that time. ¶ 14 Weinert asserts that a municipality is a state agency, relying on State v. City of Great Falls (1940), 110 Mont. 318, 100 P.2d 915, and, consequently, Rule 38 notice is not required. The reasoning behind our determination that a city is a state agency was that cities were, at that time, creatures of statute. See Great Falls, 110 Mont. at 328, 100 P.2d at 920. ¶ 15 Great Falls preceded the enactment of the 1972 Montana Constitution, which allows local government units under self-government charters to exercise any powers not prohibited by the constitution, law or charter. See Art. XI, Sec. 6, Mont. Const. The City of Great Falls adopted a self-government charter effective July 1, 1986. See Art. I and Art. VIII, Sec. 2, Charter of the City of Great Falls. Thus, as Weinert implicitly recognized by filing her Rule 24(d), M.R.Civ.P., notice in the District Court, the City of Great Falls is not an agency of the State of Montana. ¶ 16 Weinert also relies on City of Helena v. Helena Light & Ry. Co. (1922), 63 Mont. 108, 116, 207 P. 337, 339, for the proposition that [a] city is but a political subdivision of the state for governmental purposes[.] Like Great Falls, City of Helena predated the 1972 Constitution. Moreover, Rule 38, M.R.App.P., addresses only state agencies and employees; it does not include political subdivisions or local governments. Neither the state nor an agency thereof is a party to this action between Weinert and the City in which she challenges the constitutionality of an act of the Montana Legislature. Thus, Rule 38 is applicable here and Weinert did not meet its requirements. ¶ 17 Absent the appellant's compliance with Rule 38, M.R.App.P., we will not address a constitutional challenge to a statute in a case in which the state is not a party. See Matter of Adoption of C.J.H. (1990), 246 Mont. 52, 56, 803 P.2d 214, 216. Accordingly, we will not entertain Weinert's constitutional challenge to § 70-16-302, MCA.