MONTANA POWER CO v WOLFE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 13022 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 197 5 THE M N A A P W R COMPANY, a OTN O E Montana C o r p o r a t i o n , P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t , -vs - SAMUEL WOLFE, LYNN WOLFE e t a l . , Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Edward T. D u s s a u l t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record: For A p p e l l a n t : G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana James C . G a r l i n g t o n a r g u e d , Missoula, Montana For Respondents: McGarvey and Moore, K a l i s p e l l , Montana Dale McGarvey a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana Goldman, McChesney and Eck, M i s s o u l a , Montana Lawrence Eck a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana Submitted: December 9 , 1975 Decided : FFB .r.p 'LLQ-' ~ M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. I n t h i s eminent domain proceeding p l a i n t i f f Montana Power Company a p p e a l s t h e judgment e n t e r e d on a j u r y ' s award of compensation f o r a s t r i p of d e f e n d a n t ' s l a n d condemned a s an easement f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s 161-KV power t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . W e a f f i r m t h e judgment. The easement condemned i s a s t r i p of land 80 f e e t wide, s t r e t c h i n g 11,167 f e e t along t h e upper bench p o r t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s 5200 a c r e ranch l o c a t e d on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e B i t t e r r o o t v a l l e y , e a s t of S t e v e n s v i l l e i n R a v a l l i County. a r e a o f 20.5 a c r e s . This s t r i p c o n t a i n s an The remainder of d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y sub- j e c t t o d e p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e r e s u l t i n g from t h i s t a k i n g cons t i t u t e s 319.5 a c r e s . Eleven p o l e s t r u c t u r e s of t h e p l a i n t i f f u t i l i t y ' s t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e between i t s Missoula No. 4 s u b s t a t i o n and Hamilton Heights occupy t h e easement. approximately 58 f e e t t a l l . The pole s t r u c t u r e s a r e There a r e 9 double pole s t r u c t u r e s w i t h 2 t r i p l e p o l e s t r u c t u r e s i n t h i s easement. The s t r u c t u r e s a r e v i s i b l e f o r a d i s t a n c e of about 5 m i l e s , and placed on k n o l l s o r promontories i n d e f e n d a n t ' s timbered p a s t u r e and on a small p o r t i o n of h i s c u l t i v a t e d land. ~ e f e n d a n t ' sranch a s a whole contained a small amount of i r r i g a t e d hay and p a s t u r e l a n d , some d r y land crop a c r e a g e , and a l a r g e amount of d r y l a n d g r a z i n g , b o t h open and timbered. P l a i n t i f f u t i l i t y commenced t h e s e eminent domain proceedings i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e f o u r t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Chapter 99, T i t l e 9 3 , R.C.M. 1947. Both p a r t i e s appealed t h e commissioners' award f o r t h e easement and d e p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e o f t h e remainder t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . Following a j u r y t r i a l b e f o r e Hon. Edward Dussault, d i s t r i c t judge, a judgment of $15,382.50 f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e 20.5 a c r e easement and $23,961.75 f o r d e p r e c i a t i o n i n s v a l u e t o t h e 319.5 a c r e remainder was e n t e r e d f o r defendant, pursuant t o t h e verdict . p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was denied by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s a p p e a l i s taken from t h e judgment and t h e o r d e r denying a new t r i a l . Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l : 1. Whether s a l e s comparable i n s i z e , b u t n o t i n shape, t o t h e land taken should have been admitted i n t o evidence? 2. Whether t h e j u r y committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by n o t following c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 when i t awarded $750 p e r a c r e f o r t h e easement? F i r s t , c o n s i d e r i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e evidence of comparable s a l e s , we n o t e t h i s Court h a s approved t h e u s e of such evidence i n eminent domain proceedings. S t a t e Highway Commission v. Jacobs, 150 Mont. 322, 328, 435 P.2d 274; S t a t e Highway Commi-ssion v. Tubbs, 147 Mont. 296, 303, 411 P.2d 739. Further, when t h e v a l u e of a n o t h e r p i e c e of p r o p e r t y i s t e s t i f i e d t o f o r t h e purpose o f showing t h e b a s i s f o r an e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n , a s was done h e r e , t h e requirement of s i m i l a r i t y i s n o t so s t r i c t . State Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra. E s s e n t i a l l y p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e 80 f o o t easement and t h e r e s i d e n t i a l t r a c t s a l e s t e s t i f i e d t o by d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p e r t a r e so g r e a t a s t o make t h e s a l e s n o t j u d i c i a l l y comparable. Yet i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a p p e l l a t e review o f comparable s a l e evidence admitted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s l i m i t e d . 5 Nichols on Eminent Domain, $21.31, pp. 21-54 t o 21-59, s t a t e s : " S i m i l a r i t y does n o t mean i d e n t i c a l , b u t having a resemblance. Obviously, no two p r o p e r t i e s can be e x a c t l y a l i k e , and no g e n e r a l r u l e can be l a i d down r e g a r d i n g t h e degree of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t must e x i s t t o make such evidence a d m i s s i b l e . I t must n e c e s s a r i l y v a r y w i t h t h e circumstances of each p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . Whether t h e p r o p e r t i e s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o have some b e a r i n g on t h e v a l u e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and t o be of any a i d t o t h e j u r y , must n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t l a r g e l y i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , which w i l l n o t b e i n t e r f e r e d w i t h u n l e s s abused. The e x a c t l i m i t s , e i t h e r of s i m i l a r i t y o r d i f f e r e n c e , o r o f n e a r n e s s o r remoteness i n p o i n t of time, i s d i f f i c u l t , i f n o t impossible, t o p r e s c r i b e by any a r b i t r a r y r u l e , b u t must t o a l a r g e e x t e n t depend on t h e l o c a t i o n and t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e circumstances of t h e c a s e . It i s t o be considered w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o t h e l i g h t thrown on t h e i s s u e , and n o t a s a mere method of r a i s i n g a l e g a l puzzle." The background o f one Roy ~ o d e n b e r g e r ' s testimony on comparable s a l e s and h i s opinion on v a l u e can b e b r i e f l y summarized. The a r e a of t h e Wolfe ranch on Burnt Fork Creek, about e i g h t miles o u t of S t e v e n s v i l l e had, i n 1972, an a t t r a c t i o n f o r r u r a l homesites. I t s h i g h e s t and b e s t use was f o r t h a t purpose. Rodenberger determined t h a t c e r t a i n s a l e s of s m a l l homesite t r a c t s were of v a l u e i n determining t h e u l t i m a t e v a l u e o f t h e land taken h e r e and t h e damage t o t h e remainder. I n t h i s connection he was c a r e - f u l l y examined, both on d i r e c t and c r o s s . A synopsis of h i s t h i n k i n g i s probably b e s t expressed i n t h i s q u e s t i o n and answer on cross-examination: "Q. And your t h e o r y was t h a t i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s t h a t a r e i n your l i s t number one were i n d i c a t i v e o f a twenty a c r e s a l e , they would be i n d i c a t i v e of t h e v a l u e of t h e land w i t h i n t h e easement? "A. Yes, t h e y would be i n d i c a t i v e . However, t h e l a n d s t h a t a r e i n t h e s e s a l e s a r e r e g u l a r t r a c t s of l a n d i n a planned manner, and t h e r e i s no way t o a c t u a l l y compare a r e g u l a r planned t r a c t of land t h a t may be oblong o r square o r even t r i a n g u l a r on t h e edge of a ranch, t o an e i g h t y f o o t ribbon two m i l e s through t h e c e n t e r of t h e ranch. So, d u r i n g t h e whole time of comparison I t r i e d t o make t h e s e t r a c t s r e g u l a r i n t h i s ranch t a k i n g , and t h e only way you can do i t i s t a k e t h e f o r t y - a c r e t r a c t s and say: A l l r i g h t , what a r e t h e y doing t o t h i s t r a c t ? They a r e t a k i n g two and a t h i r d a c r e s out of t h i s t r a c t , and i t ' s kind o f on t h e edge. The n e x t f o r t y - a c r e t r a c t t h e y might b e going r i g h t through t h e middle of i t a s t h a t o v e r l a y shows. Although i t i s i n d i c a t i v e of t h e market, i t i s n ' t a t r u e comparis6n because, I t h i n k , t h e f a c t t h a t i t i s s p l i t t i n g a p i e c e of p r o p e r t y i n a e i g h t y f o o t ribbon two m i l e s long, which i s d e f i n i t e l y an i r r e g u l a r t y p e shape t r a c t , t h e s e comparisbns a r e c o n s e r v a t i v e on t h e market on t h a t type of a t r a c t . 1 1 P l a i n t i f f was t a k i n g , b e s i d e s t h e easement, t h e u s e of e x i s t i n g roadways and a c c e s s by "reasonable means". It was c l e a r t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e land taken, t h e q u a n t i t y , and t h e a c c e s s easement, were being considered and t h a t because of a l l t h e circums t a n c e s t h e easement v a l u e was s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e f e e value, except for the grazing left. Mr. Rodenberger considered all of these matters. However, plaintiff condemnor contends that the requisite elements of comparability of land values do not exist where a 20 acre fee homesite is likened to an easement strip 80 feet wide, and two miles long. That area alone cannot be a controlling consideration. We agree, but as shown by the foregoing quote of the appraiser Rodenberger, he did not literally do this. We cannot conclude that the sales introduced as a basis for the opinion of defendant's expert amounted to an abuse of discretion by the district court. These recent sales involved tracts of similar sizes and did shed some light on the value of defendant's land for residential development. Differences between these tracts and the easement were thoroughly developed on both direct and cross-examination. Given this, it was for the jury to determine the weight to be given the comparable sales and the expert's appraisal. United States v. 84.4 Acres of Land, Etc., 348 F.2d 117, 119; Illnois Building Authority v. Dembinsky, 101 I11.App.2d 59, 242 N.E.2d 67,69; Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. Mitsui Investment Inc., (Utah 1974), 522 P.2d 1370, 1373. We find no error. The second issue raised on appeal is based on district court's Instruction No. 19, which reads: "YOU are instructed that the lands being valued in this case for the purpose of determining just compensation may not be valued at one amount within the area of the easement and at a different amount in other similar areas of the same tract. Fhere the lands are all in one tract, they must be considered to ether, and their fair market value determined & h i i i g l y . " (Emphasis supplied. ) Plaintiff submits that the jury's award of $15,382.50 or $750 per acre for the 20.5 acre easement is contrary to this instruction. It is contended that since the highest value placed on the remainder was $500 per acre, application of this instruction required the jury to award not greater than $500 per acre for t h e easement taken. I n o t h e r words, p l a i n t i f f contends t h a t evidence of a lower v a l u e f o r t h e remainder c o n t r o l s t h e v a l u e of t h e easement. The j u r y h e r e r e t u r n e d by t h e v e r d i c t two s e p a r a t e v a l u e s , $15,382.50 f o r t h e easement taken; and $23,961.75 f o r damages t o t h e remainder. The remainder was approximately 320 a c r e s . then t o r e a c h i t s t h e s i s t h a t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 was Plaintiff v i o l a t e d , argues s i n c e owner's w i t n e s s Rodenberger t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e land o u t s i d e t h e c o r r i d o r of t h e easement had a v a l u e of $300 p e r a c r e ; and t h e condemnor's w i t n e s s G l a s s e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t $500. p e r a c r e was a f a i r f i g u r e , t h a t t h e r e f o r e , under t h e i n s t r u c t i o n l i t e r a l l y r e a d , t h e r e was only evidence t o support a f i g u r e of a maximum of $500 p e r a c r e r a t h e r than $750 p e r a c r e a s found by t h e jury. Rodenberger had t e s t i f i e d t o a f i g u r e of $1200 p e r a c r e f o r t h e land taken. W r e a l i z e t h a t t o f o l l o w t h e argument and l o g i c e o f t h e condemnor i s d i f f i c u l t . C o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 cannot b e r e a d out of c o n t e x t i n a l i t e r a l manner. It must b e r e a d and understood i n t h e l i g h t of t h e c a s e . I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 commands only t h a t t h e l a n d s be II considered t o g e t h e r and t h e i r f a i r market v a l u e determined accordingly. II I t does n o t r e q u i r e a lower a p p r a i s a l f o r one a r e a of a t r a c t t o c o n t r o l a h i g h e r a p p r a i s a l f o r o t h e r a r e a s of t h e same t r a c t . The i n s t r u c t i o n simply r e q u i r e s t h e j u r y t o a r r i v e a t one v a l u e f o r t h e l a n d s i n t h e t r a c t . I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 , s t a t e s : You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t j u s t compensation should be a r r i v e d a t by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e following: II "1. The v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y sought t o be condemned. I f t h e p r o p e r t y sought t o be condemned c o r "2. s t i t u t e s only a p a r t of a l a r g e r p a r c e l , the. deprec i a t i o n i n v a l u e , i f any, which w i l l a c c r u e t o t h e p o r t i o n n o t sought t o be condemned, by reason of i t s severance from t h e p o r t i o n sought t o be condemned, and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e improvements i n t h e manner proposed by t h e P l a i n t i f f . (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . C l e a r l y t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n contemplates j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n of evidence of t h e v a l u e of t h e easement a s w e l l a s damage t o t h e remainder. E a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion we approved evidence of com- p a r a b l e s a l e s upon which an e x p e r t ' s a p p r a i s a l of $1200 p e r a c r e f o r t h e easement taken was based. It i s not disputed t h a t appraisals of t h e v a l u e of t h e remainder ranged from $300 t o $500 p e r a c r e . Thus c o n s i d e r i n g t h e l a n d s t o g e t h e r a s r e q u i r e d by t h e c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19, t h e j u r y had a p e r m i s s i b l e range of v a l u e s from $300 t o $1200 p e r a c r e from which i t could determine i t s award of j u s t compensation. Presented w i t h t h i s range o f v a l u e s and following t h e i n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , t h e j u r y s e l e c t e d t h e mean v a l u e of $750 p e r a c r e a s t h e b a s i s of i t s award. This value f o r t h e easement i s obviously w i t h i n t h e evidence a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u r y and t h u s n o t obviously and palpably o u t of p r o p o r t i o n t o j u s t compensation r e q u i r i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e j u r y by t h i s Court. S t a t e Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra. Finding no p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n admission and u s e of comparable s a l e s d a t a and m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c t i o n s , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d . W Concur: e f
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.
