State v. Scrivani Helehan

No. 13554
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE O MONTANA
F F
19 76
THE STATE OF MONTANA, ACTING BY
AND T R U H THE DEPARTMENT O
HOG F
HIGHWAYS O THE STATE O MONTANA,
F F
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
KATHERINE SCRIVANI, e t a l ,
Defendant and Respondent.
ORIGINAL PROCEEDING :
Counsel o f Record:
For Appellant:
D a n i e l J. S u l l i v a n a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
For Respondent :
S t i m a t z and Engel, B u t t e , Montana
Joseph C. Engel 1 1 a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
1
Submitted: October 25, 1976
Decided : N O v 19 1976
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e James T . H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f
t h e Court.
I n t h i s c a u s e d e f e n d a n t Thomas J . H e l e h a n ' s p r o p e r t y
i n t e r e s t w a s condemned by p l a i n t i f f and p o s s e s s i o n t a k e n i n
O c t o b e r , 1965. I n J u n e , 1976, d e f e n d a n t was awarded $30,866
by a condemnation commission and judgment was e n t e r e d f o r t h a t
amount p l u s i n t e r e s t and c o s t s , making a t o t a l judgment o f
$87,742.04. P l a i n t i f f s o u g h t t o have t h e judgment amended
but w a s refused. Counsel f o r d e f e n d a n t t h e n moved t h e c o u r t
t o o r d e r p l a i n t i f f t o make a d e p o s i t i n t o c o u r t o f t h e amount
o f t h e award and judgment, which w a s g r a n t e d by t h e d i s t r i c t
court. P l a i n t i f f f i l e d n o t i c e o f a p p e a l and a p p l i e d f o r a s t a y
upon f i l i n g a s u p e r s e d e a s bond. T h i s was d e n i e d by t h e d i s t r i c t
c o u r t and p l a i n t i f f w a s a g a i n o r d e r e d t o make t h e d e p o s i t .
P l a i n t i f f t h e n , e x p a r t e , s e c u r e d from t h i s C o u r t a n
order staying the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s order. D e f e n d a n t moved f o r
a n a d v e r s a r y h e a r i n g which was g r a n t e d . Such h e a r i n g was h e l d ,
b r i e f s f i l e d by t h e p a r t i e s and c o u n s e l w e r e h e a r d i n o r a l a r g u -
ment and t h e m a t t e r s u b m i t t e d f o r d e c i s i o n .
While many c o n t e n t i o n s a r e made by p l a i n t i f f t h a t t h e
s t a y o r d e r should remain i n e f f e c t , w e a r e confronted w i t h t h e
s t a t u t e , s e c t i o n 93-9920, R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , which p r o v i d e s i n p e r t i n e n t
part:
"At a n y t i m e a f t e r t h e f i l i n g o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
condemnation o r d e r o r a f t e r t h e r e p o r t and a s s e s s -
ment o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s have been made and f i l e d
i n t h e c o u r t , and e i t h e r b e f o r e o r a f t e r a p p e a l
from s u c h a s s e s s m e n t , o r from a n y o t h e r o r d e r o r
judgment i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s , t h e c o u r t o r a n y j u d g e
t h e r e o f a t chambers, upon a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e p l a i n -
t i f f , s h a l l have power t o make a n o r d e r t h a t upon
payment i n t o c o u r t f o r t h e d e f e n d a n t e n t i t l e d t h e r e -
t o o f t h e amount o f c o m p e n s a t i o n c l a i m e d by t h e
d e f e n d a n t i n h i s answer o r t h e amount a s s e s s e d ,
e i t h e r by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s o r by t h e j u r y , a s t h e
c a s e may b e , t h e p l a i n t i f f b e a u t h o r i z e d , i f a l r e a d y
i n possession of t h e property of such defendant
s o u g h t t o b e a p p r o p r i a t e d , t o c o n t i n u e i n s u c h pos-
session; o r , i f not i n possession, t h a t the p l a i n t i f f
be a u t h o r i z e d t o t a k e p o s s e s s i o n of s u c h p r o p e r t y
and u s e and p o s s e s s t h e same d u r i n g t h e pendency
and u n t i l t h e f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s
and l i t i g a t i o n , and t h a t a l l a c t i o n s and proceed-
i n g s a g a i n s t t h e p l a i n t i f f on a c c o u n t t h e r e o f be
s t a y e d u n t i l such t i m e * * *.
" * * * t h e defendant e n t i t l e d t h e r e t o , i f t h e r e
be no d i s p u t e a s t o t h e ownership of t h e p r o p e r t y ,
may a t any t i m e demand and r e c e i v e upon o r d e r of
t h e c o u r t , a l l o r any p a r t of t h e money s o d e p o s i t e d
* * *
" * * * and p r o v i d e d , f u r t h e r , t h a t t h e c o u r t s h a l l
n o t o r d e r t h e d e l i v e r y t o any d e f e n d a n t of more
t h a n s e v e n t y - f i v e ( 7 5 ) p e r c e n t of t h e money d e -
p o s i t e d on h i s a c c o u n t e x c e p t upon p o s t i n g of bond
by such d e f e n d a n t e q u a l t o t h e amount i n e x c e s s o f
s e v e n t y - f i v e ( 7 5 ) p e r c e n t , w i t h s u r e t i e s t o be
approved by t h e c o u r t ; t o r e p a y t o t h e p l a i n t i f f
such amounts withdrawn a s a r e i n e x c e s s of h i s f i n a l
award i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s . "
T h i s Court i n S t a t e v. Bradshaw Land & L i v e s t o c k Co., 99
Mont. 95, 1 0 3 , 43 P.2d 674, i n r e f e r r i n g t o t h i s s e c t i o n o f o u r
Codes, s t a t e d :
"By t h e s e s t a t u t e s t h e p l a i n t i f f s a r e a c c o r d e d
t h e r i g h t of a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t . They m u s t ,
i n o r d e r t o g a i n p o s s e s s i o n , pay t h e amount of
t h e compensation and damages awarded i n t o c o u r t .
I f t h e y do n o t pay t h e amount of t h e judgment
w i t h i n t h i r t y d a y s , and a showing of nonpayment
i s made, t h e t r i a l c o u r t must s e t a s i d e t h e
e n t i r e p r o c e e d i n g s and r e s t o r e p o s s e s s i o n . No
method i s p r o v i d e d f o r a s t a y of p r o c e e d i n g s
pending a n a p p e a l ; i n f a c t , t h e s t a t u t e e x p r e s s l y
d e c l a r e s t h a t none of t h e p r o c e e d i n g s p r o v i d e d
f o r by s t a t u t e s h a l l o p e r a t e a s a s t a y of proceed-
ings. I t i s e x p r e s s l y provided t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s ,
by payment i n t o c o u r t of t h e amount a s s e s s e d , ' s h a l l
n o t be t h e r e b y p r e v e n t e d o r p r e c l u d e d from a p p e a l -
i n g from such a s s e s s m e n t , b u t may a p p e a l i n t h e
same manner and w i t h t h e same e f f e c t a s i f no
money had been d e p o s i t e d o r s e c u r i t y g i v e n . ' These
s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n s , i f v a l i d , a r e c o n c l u s i v e of
t h e r i g h t of t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o appeal."
The Department of Highways c o n t e n d s t h a t s e c t i o n 93-9917,
R.C.M. 1947, i s a u t h o r i t y f o r a s t a y o f t h e judgment, w h i l e de-
f e n d a n t c a l l s a t t e n t i o n t o s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 0 5 ( 3 ) , R.C.M. 1947, which
provides i n part:
" * * * Such a p p e a l d o e s n o t s t a y any f u r t h e r
p r o c e e d i n g s under t h i s c h a p t e r , e x c e p t t h a t t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t on motion o r ex p a r t e may g r a n t a
s t a y f o r s u c h p e r i o d of t i m e and under such
c o n d i t i o n s a s t h e c o u r t deems p r o p e r . "
A s h e r e t o f o r e s t a t e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t denied a s t a y t o t h e
Department of Highways.
T h i s a p p a r e n t c o n f l i c t was r e c o g n i z e d by t h i s C o u r t
i n Robertson v. S t a t e Highway Comm'n, 148 Mont. 275, 281, 282,
420 P.2d 2 1 , where w e s t a t e d :
"A f u r t h e r p r o c e d u r a l m a t t e r a p p e a r s . A f t e r t h e
w r i t of e x e c u t i o n i s s u e d , r e s p o n d e n t s f i l e d a
n o t i c e of a p p e a l and p e r f e c t e d t h e i r a p p e a l . R e -
s p o n d e n t s u r g e t h a t t h i s s t a y s t h e judgment under
R.C.M. 1947, 5 93-8011. Respondents d i d n o t f i l e
a bond, a s s e r t i n g t h a t even though s u c h a bond i s
r e q u i r e d under s e c t i o n 93-8011, (and t h i s b e i n g a n
eminent domain c a s e , s e e Rule 81) t h a t under Rule
6 2 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P., no s e c u r i t y i s r e q u i r e d when
t h e S t a t e i s t h e a p p e l l a n t . There i s seemingly a
c o n f l i c t h e r e between t h e R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e ,
Rule 6 2 ( e ) and s e c t i o n 93-8011, whether s e c u r i t y
i s r e q u i r e d i n eminent domain a p p e a l s . However,
h e r e a g a i n comes t h e c o n f l i c t between t h e a p p l i c a n t s '
p o s i t i o n t h a t t h i s i s an eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g
i n i t s e n t i r e t y and t h a t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s who
would d i v i d e t h e c a s e ; t h a t i s , (1) eminent domain
a s t o r e c o r d p r o p e r t y owners and ( 2 ) damages ( i n -
v e r s e condemnation) a s t o t h e a p p l i c a n t s . T h i s
c o n f l i c t , i f it be o n e , may n e c e s s a r i l y be i n v o l v e d
i n t h e a p p e a l of t h e judgment on i t s m e r i t s . But,
f o r o u r p u r p o s e s h e r e , w e i n d u l g e i n t h e presumption
of c o r r e c t n e s s of t h e judgment and w i l l n o t p e r m i t
a collateral attack. (See g e n e r a l l y 30 C.J.S.
Eminent Domain § 326, pp. 195-198; Thompson v .
Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co., 78 Mont. 170, 253 P. 313;
M i t c h e l l v . G a r f i e l d County, 123 Mont. 115, 208
P.2d 4 9 7 . ) "
When t h e m a t t e r came on f o r h e a r i n g on t h e m e r i t s no i s s u e w a s
raised i n t h i s regard. See Montana S t a t e Highway Comm'n v s .
Robertson & Blossom, 1 5 1 Mont. 205, 4 4 1 P.2d 181.
I t i s o u r o p i n i o n t h a t t h e Department of Highways must make
t h e d e p o s i t o f t h e award g r a n t e d by t h e commissioners. However,
c e r t a i n q u e s t i o n s a s t o t h e amount of t h e judgment a r e r a i s e d ,
such a s t h e a l l o w a n c e of o f a n a t t o r n e y f e e w i t h o u t a h e a r i n g ,
a l l o w i n g i n t e r e s t a t lo%, and a l l o w i n g a c o s t b i l l w i t h o u t n o t i c e .
These m a t t e r s should be h e a r d by t h e c o u r t upon n o t i c e and s h o u l d
n o t be r e q u i r e d t o be d e p o s i t e d and become s u b j e c t t o w i t h d r a w a l .
The s i t u a t i o n h e r e i s much l i k e t h a t i n R o b e r t s o n v . S t a t e
Highway Comm'n, 148 Mont. 275, 283, 4 2 0 P . 2 d 21, where w e h e l d
no i n t e r e s t b e d e p o s i t e d .
T h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s d i r e c t e d t o make a n amend d
P
order requiring deposit
award.
W e concur: LL
Ju tice
----------------
s i t t i n w p l a c e of M r .
Wesley C a s t l e s .