STATE EX REL DEPT OF HWYS v HY-

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12988 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 THE STATE OF MONTANA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, P l a i n t i f f s a d Appellants, HY -GRADE AUTO COURT, a Dissolved Montana Corpora t i o n ; RONALD C WHITE ; VENETA WHITE ; .t a t u t o r y T r u s t e e s o f as S GLYNOEU J. WHITE, t h e Hygrade Auto C o u r t , a Dissolved Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ; EUTJPH E. MOORE, I N C . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable W. W. L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For Appellants : D a n i e l J , S u l l i v a n argued and James D r i s c o l l a r g u e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondents: H o l t e r , Heath and Kirwan, Bozeman, Montana Robert M. H o l t e r argued, Bozeman, Montana B e r g e r , Anderson, S i n c l a i r & Murphy, B i l l i n g s , Montana Richard FJ. Anderson a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Yardley and Yardley, L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Dan Yardley a p p e a r e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Huppert and S w i n d l e h u r s t , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Arnold Huppert Jr. a p p e a r e d , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : i'7!r,c , t -4 :-',7f ; December 8, 1975 y?; Chief 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 Opinion o f t h e Court. Mr. T h i s i s a n a p p e a l from a condemnation j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , P a r k County. Hy-Grade Auto C o u r t , i s a d i s s o l v e d Montana c o r p o r a t i o n holding f e e t i t l e t o s e r v i c e s t a t i o n property i n Gardiner, Montana. The s t o c k h o l d e r s and s u c c e s s o r s t o w r a d e a r e Veneta White, Ronald C. White ( h e r s o n ) and Glynora White ( h i s w i f e ) t h e y w i l l be c o l l e c t i v e l y r e f e r r e d t o h e r e i n a s "Owner". , Ralph E. Moore, I n c . leases t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n p r o p e r t y from t h e Owner, and h a s l e a s e d it f o r many y e a r s . be r e f e r r e d t o a s " L e s s e e " . This corporation w i l l There i s a s u b l e s s e e who a c t u a l l y r u n s t h e s e r v i c e s t a t i o n , b u t he i s n o t a p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n . The Montana Department of Highways, (State), filed this condemnation a c t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s o f u p g r a d i n g U. S. Highway 89 and t h e b r i d g e c r o s s i n g t h e Yellowstone R i v e r i n G a r d i n e r . The s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y i s known a s t h e N o r t h g a t e Texaco s t a t i o n and i s t h e prime s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i t e i n G a r d i n e r . The p r o p e r t y i s l o c a t e d on t h e "swing c o r n e r " , meaning it h a s good v i s a b i l i t y i n a l l d i r e c t i o n s and good access. The highway f o r k s a t t h e s t a t i o n , o n e f o r k g o i n g t o J a r d i n e , Montana, and t h e o t h e r c r o s s i n g t h e Yellowstone b r i d g e , and l e a d i n g t o t h e North E n t r a n c e of Yellowstone N a t i o n a l P a r k . V i r t u a l l y a l l v i s i t o r s t o t h e Park, e n t e r i n g and l e a v i n g a t G a r d i n e r , p a s s t h e s i t e o f t h e s t a t i o n . The s t a t i o n pumped o v e r t w i c e a s much g a s a s any o t h e r s t a t i o n i n Gardiner. A f t e r t h e t a k i n g , t h e l a n d l e f t a v a i l a b l e t o t h e Owner would n o t be s u f f i c i e n t n o r s u i t a b l e f o r a s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i t e . A l l improvements on t h e p r o p e r t y were t a k e n by t h e S t a t e , e i t h e r a s right-of-way, o r f o r t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n easement. L e s s e e had l e a s e d t h e p r o p e r t y from t h e Owner s i n c e 1964, i n f a c t , s i n c e it was b u i l t i n 1948 (under t h e p r e s e n t owner and and i t s p r e d e c e s s o r i n i n t e r e s t ) . The lease i n e f f e c t a t t h e t i m e of t h i s a c t i o n was d a t e d F e b r u a r y 1, 1968,and p r o v i d e d f o r a t e n y e a r p r i m a r y t e r m w i t h two a d d i t i o n a l f i v e y e a r renewal t e r m s . A t t h e t i m e o f t r i a l , t h e l e a s e had 1 4 y e a r s t o run. L e s s e e a l s o o p e r a t e s a s a d i s t r i b u t o r f o r Texaco. It s e r v i c e s N o r t h g a t e Texaco and e i g h t o t h e r Texaco s e r v i c e s t a t i o n s i n t h e Livingston-Gardiner area. P r i o r t o t h e jury t r i a l , t h e S t a t e requested a bifurcated t r i a l , t h a t i s , i n t h e S t a t e ' s view, t h e j u r y would f i r s t d e c i d e t h e t o t a l v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y t a k e n ( a s though owned by o n e p e r s o n ) , subsequently receiving evidence as t o t h e value of each i n t e r e s t i n t h e whole; d e c i d i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n i n a s e p a r a t e d e l iberation. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t conducted a s i n g l e t r i a l , p e r m i t t e d t h e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f e v i d e n c e on t h e t o t a l v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y , and t h e v a l u e s of t h e two i n t e r e s t s . The j u r y was i n s t r u c t e d t o a r r i v e a t a t o t a l v a l u e f i r s t , and t h e n a p p o r t i o n t h a t award between Owner and L e s s e e , a l l d u r i n g o n e d e l i b e r a t i o n . A t t r i a l defendants' expert witnesses t e s t i f i e d t o t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y , r a n g i n g i n t h e i r e s t i m a t e s from a h i g h o f $135,000 ( a n estimate by t h e L e s s e e ) t o a low of $100,000 ( a n e s t i m a t e by a Texaco l a n d a p p r a i s e r ) . The two a p p r a i s e r s t e s t i f y i n g f o r t h e S t a t e g a v e e s t i m a t e d v a l u e s of $41,200 and The j u r y r e t u r n e d t h i s v e r d i c t : "We t h e J u r y , d u l y i m p a n e l l e d , r e a c h o u r v e r d i c t i n t h e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d Cause, a s f o l l o w s : "1. For t h e v a l u e o f t h e l a n d and b u i l d i n g s a c t u a l l y t a k e n , t h e sum o f $100,000 "2. For t h e damage t o t h e l a n d r e m a i n i n g a f t e r $ c o n s t r u c t i o n , t h e sum o f " 3 . T o t a l owing t o b o t h D e f e n d a n t s ( t o t a l of t h e above Two ( 2 ) f i g u r e s , t h e sum of $100,000 "Out of t h e t o t a l compensation awarded t o b o t h D e f e n d a n t s , a s above s t a t e d , w e f u r t h e r b r e a k t h e award down between t h e D e f e n d a n t s , a s f o l l o w s : "1. To Defendant, Ralph E . Moore, I n c . , a s Lessee, $ 50,000 t h e sum of "2. To Defendant, Hy-Grade Auto C o u r t t h e sum o f $ 50,000" Judgment w a s e n t e r e d on t h e v e r d i c t October 4 , 1974. The judgment a l l o w e d i n t e r e s t , t o Owner and L e s s e e , from t h e d a t e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation, J u n e 1 9 , 1973. The S t a t e a p p e a l s from t h e j u r y v e r d i c t and judgment. Three i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d by t h e S t a t e f o r r e v i e w : 1. I n a n eminent domain a c t i o n , what i s t h e p r o p e r pro- c e d u r e t o be f o l l o w e d a t t r i a l t o conform t o t h e s t a t u t o r y req u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 1 2 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 2. 1947? Whether b o t h t h e l e s s o r and t h e lessee of t h e p r o p e r t y b e i n g condemned a r e e n t i t l e d t o i n t r o d u c e t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e income f i g u r e s a s f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e income a p p r o a c h t o d e t e r m i n e t h e v a l u e of t h e property being taken? 3. I n a n eminent domain a c t i o n , d o e s t h e i n t e r e s t on t h e judgment r u n from t h e d a t e of t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation o r from t h e d a t e p o s s e s s i o n of t h e p r o p e r t y t o condemnor i s g r a n t e d by t h e c o u r t ? W e consider t h e t h i r d i s s u e f i r s t . R.C.M. S e c t i o n 93-9913, 1947, p r o v i d e s : " * * * I f a n o r d e r be made l e t t i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f i n t o p o s s e s s i o n * * * t h e f u l l amount f i n a l l y awarded s h a l l draw l a w f u l i n t e r e s t from t h e d a t e on which t h e p r o p e r t y owner s u r r e n d e r s p o s s e s s i o n of t h e property i n accordance with t h e terms of such o r d e r . * * * " The o r d e r and judgment of October 4 , 1974, s e t i n t e r e s t from J u n e 1 9 , 1973, t h e d a t e o f t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation. This d a t e i s c l e a r l y erroneous, a s t h e S t a t e d i d not take a c t u a l p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y u n t i l e a r l y 1974. The o r d e r , s i g n e d by Judge Shanstrom, g r a n t i n g t h e S t a t e p o s s e s s i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y was d a t e d F e b r u a r y 11, 1974. W e d i r e s t t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o c o r r e c t t h e o r d e r and judgment o f October 4 , 1974, t o i n d i c a t e i n t e r e s t on t h e award r u n n i n g from F e b r u a r y 11, 1974 p u r s u a n t t o s e c t i o n 93-9913, R.C.M. 1947. The S t a t e a s k s t h i s C o u r t t o i n t e r p r e t t h e p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g s a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 93-9912 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1947 : "5. Where t h e r e a r e two ( 2 ) o r more e s t a t e s o r d i v i d e d i n t e r e s t s i n p r o p e r t y s o u g h t t o be condemned, t h e p l a i n t i f f i s e n t i t l e d t o have t h e amount of t h e award, f o r s a i d p r o p e r t y f i r s t d e t e r m i n e d , a s h e r e i n b e f o r e s t a t e d , a s between p l a i n t i f f and a l l d e f e n d a n t s c l a i m i n g any i n t e r e s t s t h e r e i n ; t h e r e a f t e r i n t h e same p r o c e e d i n g t h e r e s p e c t i v e r i g h t s o f e a c h of s u c h d e f e n d a n t s i n and t o t h e award s h a l l be d e t e r m i n e d by t h e commissioners, under s u p e r v i s i o n and i n s t r u c t i o n of t h e c o u r t , and t h e award a p p o r t i o n e d a c c o r d i n g l y . " T h i s p r o v i s i o n i s made a p p l i c a b l e t o j u r y t r i a l s on a p p e a l s from a condemnation commissioners' r u l i n g by s e c t i o n 93-9915, R.C.M. 1947. The S t a t e s u g g e s t s C a l i f o r n i a case l a w f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e Montana s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n . C a l i f o r n i a Code o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e 81246.1 i s s i m i l a r t o s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 1 2 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. w i t h any d i f f e r e n c e s i r r e l e v a n t t o t h e i s s u e a t hand. 1947, T h i s Court h a s l o n g h e l d t h a t where a s t a t u t e i s s i m i l a r t o o n e i n a s i s t e r s t a t e , w e w i l l g i v e c o n s i d e r a t i o n t o t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a c e d on t h a t s t a t u t e by t h e c o u r t s o f t h e s i s t e r s t a t e ; b u t s u c h cons t r u c t i o n i s n o t b i n d i n g upon t h i s C o u r t . Cahill-Mooney C o n s t . Co. v . Ayres, 1 4 0 Mont. 464, 373 P.2d 703. S e c t i o n 93-9912(5), R.C.M. 1947, was e n a c t e d , i n i t s p r e s e n t form, by Chap. 234, Laws o f 1961. For 1 4 y e a r s t h e c o u r t s o f Montana have c o n s t r u e d t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n t o mean t h e award of a l l t h e p a r t i e s must be d e t e r m i n e d b e f o r e any a p p o r t i o n ment i s made among t h e p a r t i e s . T h i s p r o c e d u r e , used i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , was a p p l i e d by t h e c o u r t and j u r y , w i t h o u t r e v e r s a l o r modification, i n these cases: S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . McGaffick, 1 4 4 Mont. 76, 394 P.2d 174; S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . C i t y S e r v i c e Co., 142 Mont. 559, 563, 385 P.2d 604; S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . Crow, 1 4 2 Mont. 270, 384 P.2d 273; S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . K e n e a l l y , 142 Mont. 256, 384 P.2d 770. A l l o f t h e s e cases c o n c e r n e d v a l u - a t i o n o f l e a s e h o l d e s t a t e s , and a l l concerned s e r v i c e s t a t i o n l e a s e s , e x c e p t Crow. C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s have c o n s t r u e d t h a t s t a t e ' s e q u i v a l e n t of s e c t i o n 93-9912(5), R.C.M. 1947, a s r e q u i r i n g a b i f u r c a t e d t r i a l with t h e jury f i r s t deciding t h e t o t a l value of t h e property b e i n g t a k e n ; t h e n , i n a s e p a r a t e p r o c e e d i n g , t h e j u r y , o r a second j u r y , a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e award among t h e p a r t i e s . Inc., 62 C a l . R p t r . 320, 326, 253 Cal.App.2d 870; Redevelopment Agency o f C i t y of F r e s n o v . P e n z n e r , 87 C a l . R p t r . 417. P e o p l e v . Lynbar, 1 8 3 , 8 Cal.App.3d On t h e o t h e r hand, C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s r e c o g n i z e t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n i s e n t i r e l y " p r o c e d u r a l and n o n s u b s t a n t i v e . " Lynbar , I n c P e o p l e v. ., s u p r a . The Montana p r o c e d u r a l r u l e h a s d e v e l o p e d , t h r o u g h 1 4 y e a r s o f u s a g e , d i f f e r e n t from t h a t d e v e l o p e d by C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t s . W w i l l n o t o v e r t u r n t h e d e v e l o p e d Montana r u l e u n l e s s p r e j u d i c e e i s shown by t h e p a r t i e s . The p r o c e d u r a l r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 1 2 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1947, have been l i b e r a l l y implemented, a s i n C i t y S e r v i c e Co., where t h e j u r y d i d n o t f i r s t d e c i d e t h e whole compensation d u e b e f o r e a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e award. I n C i t y S e r v i c e Co. t h e C o u r t s t a t e d : " * * * W e t h i n k it i s c l e a r t h a t t h e awards g i v e n by t h e j u r y (even t h o u g h l i s t e d s e p a r a t e l y , a n d , t h u s , e r r o r a c c o r d i n g t o t h e S t a t e ) w e r e n o t exc e s s i v e , a r e s u p p o r t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e , and do n o t r e f l e c t a n i n c r e a s e i n v a l u a t i o n due solely to a distribution in t i t l e . To send t h i s c a s e back f o r a new t r i a l s i m p l y b e c a u s e t h e j u r y d i d n o t f i r s t e x p r e s s t h e damage i n o n e sum would be t h e h e i g h t o f s h o r t s i g h t e d n e s s and a n u t t e r waste of t i m e . " I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e j u r y d i d d e t e r m i n e a t o t a l award, t h e r e a f t e r a p p o r t i o n i n g t h e award among t h e p a r t i e s . The award w a s s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e and d o e s n o t a p p e a r e x c e s sive. The S t a t e d o e s n o t show p r e j u d i c e d u e t o t h e p r o c e d u r e used i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . The j u r y w a s p r o p e r l y admonished t o f i r s t a s c e r t a i n t h e e n t i r e award a s though t h e p r o p e r t y w e r e owned by o n e p e r s o n , t h e n t o a p p o r t i o n t h i s sum among t h e p a r t i e s . This Court has r e p e a t e d l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t it " w i l l presume t h a t t h e j u r y , i n reaching i t s v e r d i c t , followed t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t w e r e given t o it by t h e t r i a l judge." S t a g g e r s v . U.S.F. & G. Co., 159 Mont. 254, 259, 496 P.2d 1161; Welsh v . Roehm, 125 Mont. 517, The S t a t e a r g u e s e v i d e n c e a s t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e l e a s e h o l d e s t a t e must n o t be i n t r o d u c e d p r i o r t o a s c e r t a i n i n g a v a l u e f o r t h e p r o p e r t y , under t h e u n d i v i d e d f e e r u l e , t h e r e f o r e a b i f u r c a t e d t r i a l must o c c u r t o e x c l u d e s u c h e v i d e n c e from t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e j u r y i n a r r i v i n g a t t h e t o t a l v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y a s though owned by o n e p e r s o n . The j u r y w a s i n s t r u c t e d i n t h e u n d i v i d e d f e e r u l e , which g o v e r n s t h i s c a s e , b u t t h e r u l e d o e s n o t p r e v e n t i n t r o d u c t i o n of e v i d e n c e as t o t h e v a l u e o f t h e whole. The r a t i o n a l e f o r a d m i t t i n g s u c h e v i d e n c e p r i o r t o t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t o t a l v a l u e , i s w e l l s t a t e d by t h e C a l i f o r n i a c o u r t i n P e o p l e v. Lynbar, I n c . , 62 C a l . R p t r . 320, 328: " I n t h i s state, as i s g e n e r a l l y t r u e elsewhere, t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t of j u s t compens a t i o n f o r t h e t a k i n g o f p r o p e r t y i n eminent domain i s n o r m a l l y s a t i s f i e d by t h e payment by t h e condemnor t o t h e condemnee o f t h e market v a l u e o f t h e p r o p e r t y taken. This market value i s t h e h i g h e s t p r i c e which t h e p r o p e r t y would b r i n g , i f exposed f o r sale i n t h e open m a r k e t by a w i l l i n g s e l l e r t o a w i l l i n g buyer w i t h b o t h p a r t i e s t o t h e t r a n s a c t i o n b e i n g f u l l y informed o f a l l t h e u s e s and p u r p o s e s t o which t h e p r o p e r t y i s r e a s o n a b l y a d a p t a b l e and a v a i l a b l e . * * * t o a r r i v e a t t h i s v a l u e one must t a k e i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n a l l t h o s e t h i n g s upon which s u c h p a r t i e s , d e a l i n g w i t h e a c h o t h e r i n t h e open m a r k e t , would r e a s o n a b l y r e l y . * * * For t h i s p u r p o s e t h e p r o p e r t y , t o g e t h e r w i t h a l l o f i t s comp e n s a b l e a t t r i b u t e s , must be v a l u e d a s t h e condemnor f i n d s i t , i n c l u d i n g w i t h o u t l i m i t a t i o n t h e r e b y , t h e s t a t e o f i t s t i t l e , and i n t h i s c a s e , t h e * * * leasehold. * * * W e say t h i s because t h i s very v a l u a b l e l e a s e h o l d i s one o f t h e t h i n g s which s u c h a buyer and s e l l e r would c o n s i d e r i n t h e open m a r k e t i n f i x i n g t h e p r i c e a t which t h e ownership o f t h e p r o p e r t y would be t r a n s f e r r e d . To s a y t h a t t h e e x i s t e n c e of such a lease s h o u l d be i g n o r e d by r e s o r t i n g t o t h e l e g a l f i c t i o n and l e g a l p r e t e n s e o f a s i n g l e owner i s t o i g n o r e t h e r e a l i t i e s o f t h e market place. I f compensation i s t o be j u s t and i f t h e p r o p e r t y owner i s t o b e made whole f o r t h e involuntary l o s s of h i s property t o t h e s t a t e , t h i s c a n n o t be p e r m i t t e d t o happen." As Mr. J u s t i c e Holmes s a i d i n Boston Chamber o f Commerce v . Boston, 217 U.S. 189, 3 0 S.Ct. 459, 54 L.Ed. 725, 727: " * * * And t h e q u e s t i o n i s , What h a s t h e owner l o s t ? n o t , What h a s t h e t a k e r g a i n e d ? " I n i t s second i s s u e , t h e S t a t e q u e s t i o n s t h e u s e o f t h e income c a p i t a l i z a t i o n method t o compute t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y being taken. The S t a t e a l l e g e s t h e L e s s e e ' s s o u r c e of income p r i n c i p a l l y came from s e l l i n g p r o d u c t s t o t h e p e r s o n a c t u a l l y c o n d u c t i n g b u s i n e s s on t h e p r o p e r t y a s t h e s u b l e s s e e . otherwise. The e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s The Lessee r e a l i z e d income d u e t o i t s c o n t r o l of t h e p r o p e r t y under t h e l e a s e and c o n t r o l of t h e f l o w of p r o d u c t s t o t h e s t a t i o n operator pursuant t o t h e sublease. The L e s s e e a l s o r e c e i v e d r e n t a l based on t h e g a l l o n s o f g a s o l i n e s o l d a t t h e station. Without t h e l e a s e , t h e Lessee c o u l d n o t have c o n t r o l l e d t h e f l o w o f g a s o l i n e , t i r e s , b a t t e r i e s and a c c e s s o r i e s t o t h e station. I f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e Lessee t o t h e s t a t i o n operator was: m e r e l y a s a s u p p l i e r , t h e o p e r a t o r c o u l d go e l s e w h e r e f o r p r o d u c t s , i f he d i d n o t wish t o d e a l e x c l u s i v e l y w i t h Lessee. I n t h i s case, t h e Lessee had t h e r i g h t t o t e r m i n a t e t h e s u b l e a s e , i f t h e o p e r a t o r s o l d any p r o d u c t s n o t approved and/or s u p p l i e d by L e s s e e . T h i s p r o f i t a b l e l e g a l r i g h t w a s t e r m i n a t e d by t h e t a k i n g of t h i s p r o p e r t y . The u s e o f t h e c a p i t a l i z e d income a p p r o a c h t o v a l u a t i o n i s appropriate i n t h i s instance. of v a l u a t i o n were d i s c u s s e d . A t t r i a l , t h e a l t e r n a t i v e methods R e p r o d u c t i o n c o s t was r e j e c t e d by a l l appraisers a s inapplicable. The comparable sales a p p r o a c h was q u e s t i o n e d when t h e S t a t e c o u l d n o t p r e s e n t t r u l y comparable recent sales. A s s t a t e d i n S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . B e n n e t t , 162 Mont. 386, 390, 513 P.2d 5: " I t h a s been g e n e r a l l y h e l d t h a t t h e b e s t method o f a r r i v i n g a t m a r k e t v a l u e i s r e c e n t sales of compar* * * But where t h e r e a r e no compara b l e property. a b l e s a l e s , e v i d e n c e based upon r e v e n u e and v a l u a t i o n based i n p a r t t h e r e o n i s competent and admissible. " When t h e income c a p i t a l i z a t i o n method e n t a i l s l e s s conj e c t u r e and u n c e r t a i n t y t h a n a l t e r n a t i v e methods, i t i s t h e a p p r o p r i a t e v a l u a t i o n method, w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s n e c e s s a r i l y h i n g i n g on t h e f a c t s of t h e c a s e b e i n g t r i e d . o f Highways v . O l s e n , 110. Mont . , S t a t e Department 531 P.2d 1330, 32 St.Rep. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e income c a p i t a l i z a t i o n a p p r o a c h proved p r e f e r a b l e , r e s u l t i n g i n a n award which was r e a s o n a b l e i n l i g h t of t h e record. There was no e r r o r on t h e p a r t o f t h e d i s - t r i c t c o u r t i n p e r m i t t i n g v a l u a t i o n by t h i s method. W e f i n d s e c t i o n 9 3 - 9 9 1 2 ( 5 ) , R.C.M. 1947, d o e s n o t r e q u i r e a b i f u r c a t e d t r i a l i n eminent domain p r o c e e d i n g s . The income c a p i t a l i z a t i o n method o f v a l u a t i o n i s p e r m i s s i b l e i n a p r o c e e d i n g s u c h a s t h i s , when it p r o v i d e s f o r t h e l e a s t c o n j e c t u r e and uncertainty. I n t e r e s t on condemnation awards r u n s from t h e d a t e of t h e order of possession of t h e property t o t h e S t a t e . The o r d e r and judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d , w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n of t h e p r o v i s i o n f o r i n t e r e s t on t h e award, which s h a l l be changed a s d i r e c t e d i n t h i s opinion. . Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: ................................ Justices

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.