Opinion ID: 885228
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 9 Did the District Court err by relying on § 60-1-201, MCA (1999) instead of the 1997 version of the statute? ¶ 10 The Pedersens contend that the District Court erred when it relied on the 1999 version of § 60-1-201, MCA, instead of the 1997 version in effect when their complaint was filed. The 1999 version of the statute provides that [a]ll highways that are not designated, selected, or established by the commission or constructed or maintained by the department may be designated as county roads or city streets upon the acceptance of the county or city. The 1997 version does not include the words upon the acceptance of the county or city. In the lower court's decision, the court found that this section indicate[d] that some affirmative action by the County is required. Appellants contend that county action is unnecessary pursuant to the 1997 version. ¶ 11 We agree that the 1997 version of the statute applies to this case. However, no error by the district court is grounds for setting aside the judgment of the district court unless the error affects the substantial rights of the parties. We must disregard any error or defect in the proceeding that does not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Rule 61, M.R.Civ.P. We conclude that this error was harmless. ¶ 12 Both the 1997 and the 1999 versions of § 60-1-201, MCA provide in subsection (3) that [c]ounty roads are those opened established, constructed, maintained, changed, abandoned, or discontinued by a County in accordance with Title 7, Chapter 14. The District Court recognized that the controlling law was found in Title 7, chapter 14 when it stated that [w]hile Title 60 (specifically 60-1-201, MCA) appears to possibly conflict with Title 7, Title 60 deals with state highway classifications and administration whereas Title 7 deals specifically with the creation of county roads. It is clear that the District Court did not rely on Title 60 for its conclusion that a county road had not been created and therefore, its mistaken reference to the 1999 version of § 60-1-201, MCA was harmless error.