Opinion ID: 886993
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 18 Whether the District Court correctly found Road 98Y was not abandoned as a result of a prior quiet title action. ¶ 19 Lee argues that the 1952 quiet title action is res judicata as to any claim there is a county road through his land. He asserts that Baertsch v. County of Lewis and Clark (1992), 256 Mont. 114, 845 P.2d 106, supports his position. Musselshell County responds with several arguments; first, that it was not a named party in the 1952 action, precluding privity of parties; second, that there can be no abandonment of a county road by implication; and third, that the District Court in 1952 had no jurisdiction to abandon 98Y. ¶ 20 For res judicata to lie: (1) the parties or their privies must be the same; (2) the subject matter of the action must be the same; (3) the issues must be the same and relate to the same subject matter; (4) the capacities of the parties must be the same in reference to the subject matter and the issues between them. Baertsch, 256 Mont. at 125, 845 P.2d at 112. ¶ 21 This Court has acknowledged that a county's right-of-way can be extinguished in a quiet title action. In Baertsch, four separate quiet title actions had been brought over the years to determine whether Lewis and Clark County had a 100 foot right-of-way or a lesser width. The District Court determined that two of the actions were res judicata against the county. This Court stated that the two actions which the District Court found acted as a bar to the County's claim clearly satisfy the four criteria of res judicata. Baertsch, 256 Mont. at 125, 845 P.2d at 113. The question in Baertsch was whether the remaining two actions should also be res judicata. This Court held that the District Court was also correct in its conclusion that the four criteria for res judicata had not been met in the remaining actions; one for lack of privity, the other for not properly joining a party to the action. ¶ 22 In this case, Musselshell County's first argument, that the County was not properly a party to the 1952 action, fails. The District Court found that Golden Valley and Musselshell counties were properly named and served in the 1952 action, and Lee did not contest this. ¶ 23 However, the issues in the present case are not the same as those adjudicated in the 1952 action. In this case, the District Court reviewed the 1952 quiet title file and found that there were no allegations made as to the nature of either county's interest in the property. The District Court also found that the quiet title action served primarily to quiet title to mineral interests. The 1952 order simply states that the plaintiff is entitled to all relief requested, is the true and lawful owner in fee simple of the property, and sets forth reservations as to mineral interests. The 1952 order further states that all defendants are barred from asserting any claim adverse to the plaintiff and to his ownership of the property. The District Court's findings, accompanied by those portions of the record introduced into evidence, justify the District Court's conclusion that the only things adjudicated in the 1952 action were ownership of the property and mineral rights. We have nothing from which to draw a conclusion that the County's right-of-way interest in 98Y was adjudicated in the quiet title action. ¶ 24 In the present case, there is no dispute over Lee's ownership of the property over which 98Y traverses, and we have already determined, in resolving Issue One, that a statutory dedication established 98Y in 1900. We have previously held that the interest a county acquires in a statutory dedication of a roadway, is the equivalent of a right-of-way deed ... and incidents necessary to enjoying and maintaining the public highway. Bailey v. Ravalli County (1982), 201 Mont. 138, 143, 653 P.2d 139, 142. It is, in effect, an easement for road purposes. It is not a fee simple transfer. Bailey, 201 Mont. at 146, 653 P.2d at 143. Thus, we conclude that the County's right-of-way interest in 98Y does not divest Lee of title to the property traversed by the road. See Jefferson County v. McCauley Ranches, 1999 MT 333, ¶ 19, 297 Mont. 392, ¶ 19, 994 P.2d 11, ¶ 19. The doctrine of res judicata fails because the issues in the present suit are not the same as those raised in the 1952 quiet title suit. ¶ 25 Lee's argument that the judgment in the 1952 quiet title action extinguished the easement for 98Y also fails because a county road cannot be abandoned by implication and there is no showing that one of the issues litigated in that action was whether the County had abandoned the road. Section 7-14-2615, MCA, states: (1) All county roads once established must continue to be county roads until abandoned or vacated by: (a) operation of law; (b) judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction; or (c) the order of the Board. (2) An order to abandon a county road is not valid unless preceded by notice and public hearing. ¶ 26 We have held that a county's mere failure to respond to a quiet title action is insufficient indication of an intent to abandon a county road. McCauley v. Thompson-Nistler, 2000 MT 215, ¶ 34, 301 Mont. 81, ¶ 34, 10 P.3d 794, ¶ 34. County authorities must take affirmative steps to abandon a county road. McCauley, at ¶ 30; see also Galassi v. Lincoln County Bd. of Comm'rs, 2003 MT 319, ¶ 15, 318 Mont. 288, ¶ 15, 80 P.3d 84, ¶ 15. In this case, the County did not respond to a quiet title suit in which there was no known allegation of abandonment, and in which there was no evidence presented that would support the conclusion that the County intended to abandon 98Y. Thus, the judgment in such action did not constitute a judgment abandoning or vacating the road. ¶ 27 Finally, the County argues that the trial court in 1952 did not have jurisdiction to effectuate an abandonment of 98Y. We again agree. In Board of County Commissioners v. District Court (1983), 203 Mont. 44, 659 P.2d 266, the District Court entered an order that had the effect of forcing the Board of Commissioners to abandon a road. The suit, however, was one for injunction. We held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction to abandon the road because the proper method for abandoning a road is a petition to the Board of County Commissioners. If, after submitting a petition, the petitioners were dissatisfied with the Board's decision not to abandon the road in question, it could then petition the District Court for a writ of review. We held this to be the only method for the District Court to obtain jurisdiction to abandon a road. Board, 203 Mont. at 49, 659 P.2d at 269. There was no petition to abandon 98Y prior to the 1952 quiet title action. Therefore, the District Court did not have jurisdiction to issue an order that would have effectuated a forced abandonment of 98Y.