MONTANA POWER CO v CHARTER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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, -vs P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents, - 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: Decided : October 20, 1976 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 condemnation 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 belonging 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. 413, 220 P. 749. Therefore, t h i s u J 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. Fox v. Hacker, 68 Mont.

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.