Opinion ID: 884501
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 28 Did the District Court err when it allowed condemnation of a 50-foot easement? ¶ 29 As previously discussed, § 70-30-203(6), MCA, provides that a complaint for condemnation must include a statement that the interest sought is the minimum necessary interest. We have also held that condemnation requires the plaintiff to prove, among other things, that the taking is necessary and that it is compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury. See Montana Power Co. v. Bokma (1969), 153 Mont. 390, 457 P.2d 769. Fly Creek contends here that Cenex failed to show that a 50-foot right-of-way represented the minimum necessary interest, and asserts that in fact the width of the easement awarded by the District Court is clearly excessive compared to what is actually needed by [Cenex]. ¶ 30 The question of necessity is one of fact to be determined as other questions of fact in the light of all the evidence. Bokma, 153 Mont. at 397-98, 457 P.2d at 774. Fly Creek offers no support from the record for its assertion that the 50-foot easement is excessive. On the other hand, there is clear evidence that a 50-foot wide easement is the minimum necessary interest and, according to some testimony, 50-feet is not wide enough. Fly Creek contends that because Cenex contracted with some landowners for less than a 50-foot easement in places, 50 feet is not necessary. The record also reflects, however, that in those agreements, provisions were added to allow Cenex at least 50-feet of access when necessary. ¶ 31 It is not this Court's role to substitute its judgment for that of the district court in the determination of issues of fact. See DeSaye, 250 Mont. at 324, 820 P.2d at 1287-88. Accordingly, we conclude that there was substantial credible evidence to support the District Court's finding and award of a 50-foot easement.