Court Opinion

ID: 9547929
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:54:36.735725+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:18:16.079054
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE ANGSTMAN:
(dissenting).
I think the trial court was right in denying injunctive relief to plaintiff and in entering the judgment which it did.
There was full compliance with the statute requiring an approximate estimate of the cost of the improvements and in giving the notice stating the estimated cost thereof.
The notice in legal effect stated to the property owners the estimated cost of the improvements is $212,000, but the actual cost may be somewhat more or somewhat less than the estimate.
The property owner then was given ample notice to constitute due process of law. He was called upon to either protest *204or accept the improvements on the supposition that the estimated cost was $212,000, but that the actual cost may be either more or less than the estimate. Compare City of Greensboro v. Southern Pav. & Const. Co., 4 Cir., 168 F. 880. It does not follow that there can be compliance with the statute if the estimated cost was not made in good faith. In other words there must be good faith and honest belief that the estimated cost would not be exceeded materially. Here there is no evidence of a lack of good faith. Labor or costs of material may have changed between February 1957 when the estimate was made and the time bids were received.
The statute on its face shows that the legislature did not intend to hold the city to a definite sum as to the cost of the improvements. That is why it used the term “approximate estimate.” Likewise it is made plain by R.C.M. 1947, section 11-2225, that the property owners cannot rely on the estimated cost as being the final figure on which assessments may be made.
Under that section the property owners may be subjected to assessment to pay damages awarded to any property owner.
Had the legislature intended that the actual cost could not exceed the approximate estimate it could easily have said so.
I do not agree that this result would establish a dangerous precedent, but if so the legislature may change the law as it sees fit at any time.
In fact the precedent has already been established. In Mansur v. City of Polson, 45 Mont. 585, 125 Pac. 1002, the estimated cost of improvements was $10,000 whereas the actual cost was in the neighborhood of $14,000, an increase of about forty percent. This appears from the argument of counsel appearing on page 589 of volume 45 of the Montana Reports. This court upheld the proceedings.
As the statute is now written I think the judgment of the trial court was in conformity therewith and should be affirmed.
*205MR. JUSTICE CASTLES, deems himself disqualified and takes no part in the determination of this appeal.