STATE v SCRIVANI HELEHAN

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

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 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. Mr. 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. 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 . D e f e n d a n t moved f o r 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 possession; 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 proceedi 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 proceedI 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 , ings. 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. Robertson & See Montana S t a t e Highway Comm'n v s . 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 .

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.