Montana Power Co. v. Charter ( 1976 )

No. 13277
I N THE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O M N A A
OR F F OTN
1976
THE M N A A P W R COMPANY, a Montana
OTN O E
c o r p o r a t i o n , and PUGET S U D P W R &
ON O E
LIGHT COMPANY,
P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,
-vs -
BOYD CHARTER and ANNE G. CHARTER, h i s w i f e ;
DREVS FARMING CORPORATION, a Montana
corpora t i o n ; PHYLLIS 0 ' CONNOR REES , BETTY
o'CONNOR GREENE, J A N E O'CONNOR L N and
OG
GENEVIEVE O'CONNOR CARLISLE,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e T h i r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Robert H. Wilson, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants :
G r a y b i l l , Ostrem, Warner and C r o t t y , Great F a l l s ,
Montana
Gregory T. Warner argued, Great F a l l s , Montana
For Respondents:
Crowley, Kilbourne, Haughey, Hanson and Gallagher,
B i l l i n g s , Montana
Thomas N. Kelley argued, B i l l i n g s , Montana
Submitted: October 20, 1976
Decided : DEC 2 8 1976
M r . J u s t i c e Gene B . Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
T h i s i s an appeal by defendant landowners from o r d e r s of
p r e l i m i n a r y condemnation and possession g r a n t e d t o p l a i n t i f f s by
t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Yellowstone County.
Each of t h e condemnation a c t i o n s presented f o r a p p e a l
were i n i t i a t e d by p l a i n t i f f s Montana Power Company and Puget
Sound Power & Light Company pursuant t o T i t l e 93, Chapter 99,
Revised Codes of Montana, 1947. The purpose of t h e a c t i o n s was
t o g a i n easements and r i g h t of way f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of a 230-500 KV
e l e c t r i c transmission l i n e t o serve t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' coal-fired
g e n e r a t i n g p l a n t s a t C o l s t r i p , Montana. Previous t o f i l i n g t h e
condemnation complaints i n d i s t r i c t c o u r t , p l a i n t i f f s o b t a i n e d
a c e r t i f i c a t e of "environmental c o m p a t i b i l i t y and p u b l i c need"
from t h e S t a t e Board of N a t u r a l Resources and Conservation i n
accordance w i t h t h e Montana Major F a c i l i t y S i t i n g Act, T i t l e 70,
Chapter 8 , Revised Codes of Montana, 1947.
Upon motion, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ordered c o n s o l i d a t i o n
of t h e t h r e e condemnation a c t i o n s w i t h a " n e c e s s i t y hearing"
scheduled f o r J u l y 8 , 1975. A t p r e t r i a l conference on t h a t d a t e
t h e c o u r t decided i t was f i r s t necessary t o determine whether, under
t h e p r e s e n t Montana law, i t was proper f o r a c o u r t t o conduct a
1 I n e c e s s i t y h e a r i n g f f a t a l l w i t h r e s p e c t t o a u t i l i t y f a c i l i t y of
t h e t y p e involved. Accordingly, counsel f o r t h e p a r t i e s o r a l l y
s t i p u l a t e d t o c e r t a i n f a c t s s o t h i s i s s u e could be r e s o l v e d .
O December 1 2 , 1975, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s
n
of f a c t and conclusions o f law wherein i t determined t h a t t h e
n e c e s s i t y f o r t h i s p a r t i c u l a r power l i n e , i t s l o c a t i o n , and land
t o be taken and t h e a r e a t h e r e o f were m a t t e r s c o n t r o l l e d by t h e
- 2 -
Montana Major Facility Siting Act and thus within the responsibility
of the State Board of Natural Resources a d Conservation. Holding
that the only issues properly before it were public use and just
compensation, the district court ruled the transmission line to
be a public use with just compensation to be determined at a future
time.
Therefore, the district court entered a preliminary condemna-
tion order on December 12, 1975. On the same day plaintiffs paid
into court the amount of compensation claimed by defendants in
their answers to the plaintiffs' condemnation complaints. The
district court then entered an order granting plaintiffs possession
and use of the lands in question.
Defendants on December 31, 1975, moved the district court
to stay the orders of preliminary condemnation and possession.
The motion was denied by the district court on January 20, 1976.
Defendants appeal from the district court's orders of
preliminary condemnation and possession.
On appeal defendants contend the orders of preliminary
condemnation and possession were improper because all issues of
preliminary condemnation for the power line were controlled by
the eminent domain statute, section 93-9901 et seq., R.C.M. 1947,
and thus were subject to hearing before the district court. However,
we believe the proper disposition of this appeal is controlled
by the course of events subsequent to the district court's denial
of defendants' motion for a stay.
First, by virtue of the district court's order of possession
granted in accordance with section 93-9920, R.C.M. 1947, plaintiffs
were entitled to "use and possess" the defendants' lands. We
note that this right has been exercised to the point where the
transmission towers and lines are now completed on those lands be-
longing to defendants.
- 3 -
Second, n o t i n g t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h e defendants'
motion f o r a s t a y of proceedings, we f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d
t o i n d i c a t e any f u r t h e r e f f o r t by t h e defendants t o p r e s e r v e t h e
s t a t u s quo pending d i s p o s i t i o n of t h i s a p p e a l .
Since t h e v e r y a c t s which defendants sought t o e n j o i n a r e
now accomplished f a c t , we hold t h e i s s u e b e f o r e t h i s Court t o b e
moot and t h u s n o t w i t h i n t h e province of t h i s Court. Adkins v.
C i t y of L i v i n g s t o n , 121Mont. 528, 194 P.2d 238.
The f a c t t h a t no p a r t y r a i s e d t h e i s s u e of mootness on a p p e a l
does n o t a l t e r t h i s n e c e s s a r y conclusion. Fox v. Hacker, 68 Mont.
413, 220 P. 749. Therefore, t h i s
uJ stices.
Hon. J a c k .L. ,,Green : , D i s t r i c t
Judge, s i t t i n g f o r J u s t i c e Wesley
Castles.