CHENNAULT v SAGER
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 79-89 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 C. B. CHENNAULT and MRS. CHENNAULT, Plaintiffs and Appellants, GEORGE SAGER, JOHN BUTTLEMEN, and JOY NASH, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, GALLATIN COUNTY, Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Gallatin. Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Bennett ard Bennett, Bozeman, Montana Lyman H. Bennett I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana For Respondents: Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Leanne Schraudner argued, Deputy County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana Submitted: Decided: April 17, 1980 6 - 1980 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. his i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment and o r d e r o f t h e ~ i s t r i c C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t r e l i e v i n g t r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e e f f e c t s of a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g order. The r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was i s s u e d a s p a r t i a l r e l i e f prayed f o r i n a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t s wT;lch s o u g h t t o permanently e n j o i n r e s p o n d e n t s from a u t h o r i z i n g o r making any improvements upon c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y which had been o r i g i n a l l y d e s i g n a t e d and d e d i c a t e d , under a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t , a s a county road. Appellants, M r . and M r s . C. B. C h e n n a u l t , are t h e owners of L o t s 9 and 1 0 o f t h e Lionhead Homesites S u b d i v i s i o n i n G a l l a t i n County, Montana. a d j a c e n t t o C e n t r a l Avenue. These l o t s are s i t u a t e d C e n t r a l Avenue i s a s t r e e t w i t h i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n which was d e s i g n a t e d a s a p u b l i c s t r e e t a t t h e t i m e of t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t . During 1973 a p p e l l a n t s c o n t a c t e d t h e G a l l a t i n County commissioners r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e abandonment of a port i o n of C e n t r a l Avenue. A p e t i t i o n was t h e r e a f t e r d r a f t e d by t h e c o u n t y on a p p e l l a n t s ' b e h a l f . The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e abandonment of t h e n o r t h e r l y 100 f e e t o f C e n t r a l Avenue. A p p e l l a n t s c i r c u l a t e d t h e p e t i t i o n among t h e f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n and o b t a i n e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s of f o u r p e o p l e endorsing t h e p e t i t i o n : C. B. C h e n n a u l t , O r i o n L. Hendry, G e r a l d i n e Hendry, and V i r i l G i l l e s p i e . A f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e c o u n t y commissioners a p p o i n t e d a board o f viewers t o i n s p e c t t h e p o r t i o n of t h e street s p e c i f i e d i n the petition. 1973. The i n s p e c t i o n was conducted on August 1 6 , On August 23, 1973, t h e board of v i e w e r s f i l e d a r e p o r t recommending abandonment of t h e p o r t i o n of t h e r o a d . On August 2 1 , 1973, t h e G a l l a t i n County r o a d s u p e r v i s o r ' s o f f i c e r S e n t n o t i c e s t o t h o s e p e o p l e who had s i g n e d t h e p e t i t i o n i n f o r m i n g them t h a t a h e a r i n g would be h e l d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p e t i t i o n on September 6, 1973. Notices were s e n t by c e r t i f i e d m a i l t o Orion L . Hendry, C. B. Chennault ard M r s . V i r i l Gillespie. However, n o t i c e w a s n o t g i v e n t o any o t h e r a d j o i n i n g landowners of r e c o r d . The h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n was h e l d on September 6 , 1973. A t t h e hearing, t h e commissioners a c c e p t e d t h e recom- mendation of t h e board o f v i e w e r s and r e s o l v e d t o abandon t h e r e q u e s t e d p o r t i o n of t h e s t r e e t . S u b s e q u e n t l y , i n 1976, t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y became aware t h a t t h e r e w e r e s e v e r a l i n a d e q u a c i e s employed i n t h e p r o c e s s t o abandon t h e s t r e e t . I n a l e t t e r d a t e d J u l y 1 2 , 1976, t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y n o t i f i e d t h e commissioners of t h e i n a d e q u a c i e s and recommended t h a t t h e o r d e r o f abandonment b e s e t a s i d e a s i n v a l i d and v o i d . The l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t , under Montana l a w , t o o few p e o p l e had s i g n e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r abandonment and t h a t n o t i c e w a s n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d . Fol- lowing t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s recommendation, t h e commiss i o n e r s i n v a l i d a t e d t h e o r d e r f o r abandonment on J u l y 1 4 , 1976. Upon b e i n g n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e abandonment had been i n v a l i d a t e d , a p p e l l a n t s c o n t a c t e d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and were a d v i s e d o f t h e p r o p e r s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r abandonment. A p p a r e n t l y , a p p e l l a n t s a l s o r e c e i v e d a d v i c e from o n e of t h e commissioners a s t o how t h e y m i g h t c u r e any d e f e c t s i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n f o r abandonment. While a p p e l l a n t s d i d p u r s u e some e f f o r t s t o have t h e o r d e r of abandonment r e i n s t i t u t e d , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e y d i d n o t follow prescribed s t a t u t o r y procedures. On September 4 , 1978, a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a n o t h e r p e t i t i o n i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e abandonment of a second and s e p a r a t e s t r e e t w i t h i n t h e i r s u b d i v i sion. The s t r e e t s o u g h t t o be d e c l a r e d abandoned w a s known as F i r s t S t r e e t . F i r s t S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t e d C e n t r a l Avenue and a d j o i n e d t h e Lionhead S u b d i v i s i o n w i t h s e v e r a l l o t s of t h e Southfork Subdivision. A hearing w a s scheduled f o r September 5, 1978, r e g a r d i n g t h i s p e t i t i o n . A t the hearing, d e v e l o p e r s of t h e S o u t h f o r k S u b d i v i s i o n s u b m i t t e d a l e t t e r o p p o s i n g t h e r e q u e s t f o r abandonment b e c a u s e i t would b l o c k access t o t h e i r property. The c o u n t y s u r v e y o r a l s o t e s t i - f i e d t h a t c l o s u r e o f F i r s t S t r e e t would b l o c k a c c e s s t o t h e S o u t h f o r k S u b d i v i s i o n and t o L o t s 3 and 4 of t h e Lionhead Subdivision. A compromise w a s r e a c h e d between t h e p a r t i e s : Central Avenue would remain open a s a n a c c e s s t o L o t s 3 and 4 of t h e Lionhead S u b d i v i s i o n a s w e l l as t h e S o u t h f o r k p r o p e r t i e s , and F i r s t S t r e e t would be abandoned e x c e p t f o r t h a t p o r t i o n which c r o s s e d C e n t r a l Avenue. The c o u n t y commissioners a d o p t e d t h i s compromise on September 2 2 , 1978, and d e c l a r e d F i r s t S t r e e t abandoned p u r s u a n t t o t h e agreement. The c o u n t y s u r v e y o r t h e n g r a n t e d t h e d e v e l o p e r s of t h e Southfork Subdivision permission t o c o n s t r u c t a g r a v e l access r o a d a l o n g C e n t r a l Avenue, i n c l u d i n g t h e n o r t h e r l y 100 f e e t of t h e r o a d f o r which t h e f i r s t abandonment had been i n v a l i d a t e d . Appellants brought t h i s a c t i o n t o r e - s t r a i n r e s p o n d e n t s from a u t h o r i z i n g t h e s e improvements upon t h e road. A s p a r t o f t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d , a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w a s i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r r e s p o n d e n t s t o show c a u s e why a permanent i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d not issue. A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d r e g a r d i n g t h e x a t t e r , and t h e c o u r t e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w . The c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e a t t e m p t t o abandon t h e n o r t h e r l y 100 f e e t o f C e n t r a l Avenue d i d n o t comply w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e ments and w a s v o i d i n i t i a l l y . Accordingly, it determined t h a t t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e s t r e e t had n e v e r been abandoned. An o r d e r r e l i e v i n g r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e e f f e c t s of t h e temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t on August 1 0 , 1979. I t i s from t h i s judgment and o r d e r t h a t appellants appeal. A s i n g l e i s s u e i s raised f o r our consideration: Were r e s p o n d e n t s , a s G a l l a t i n County commissioners, e q u i t a b l y e s t o p p e d from r e e s t a b l i s h i n g a p o r t i o n o f C e n t r a l Avenue a s a p u b l i c roadway where t h e i n i t i a l a t t e m p t t o abandon t h e roadway d i d n o t comply w i t h s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r abandonment? Both p a r t i e s a g r e e i n t h i s case t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s s e t f o r t h t h e e x c l u s i v e method by which c o u n t y r o a d s must be abandoned. The s t a t u t o r y scheme f o r t h e abandonment of c o u n t y r o a d s i s found i n s e c t i o n s 7-14-2601 2621, MCA. t h r o u g h 7-14- To i n i t i a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , any t e n o r a m a j o r i t y o f f r e e h o l d e r s o f a r o a d d i s t r i c t p e t i t i o n t h e board of c o u n t y commissioners f o r t h e abandonment of a p a r t i c u l a r road. S e c t i o n 7-14-2601, MCA. Within t h i r t y days a f t e r t h e f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e commissioners c a u s e a n i n v e s t i g a t i o n t o be conducted r e g a r d i n g t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n . S e c t i o n 7-14-2603, MCA. A public hearing and n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g i s g i v e n . MCA. i s then scheduled S e c t i o n 7-14-2615(2), The r e s u l t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e h e a r i n g a r e con;i,je.ced by t h e commissioners, and a d e c i s i o n i s e n t e r e d whether t o abandon t h e r o a d . Within t e n d a y s a f t e r t h e d e c i s i o n , t h e commissioners c a u s e n o t i c e of t h e i r d e c i s i o n t o be s e n t t o a l l owners of l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e r o a d f o r which abandonment was s o u g h t . S e c t i o n 7-14-2604, MCA. The p a r t i e s f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t t h e r e must be s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h t h e s e s t a t u t e s b e f o r e t h e d o c t r i n e o f e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l c a n be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s a s commissioners o f G a l l a t i n County. The g e n e r a l r u l e r e g a r d - i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l and t h e v a c a t i o n , d i s c o n t i n u a n c e , o r abandonment of r o a d s i s s t a t e d by one a u t h o r i t y a s f o l l o w s : "While some l i m i t a t i o n s t o i t s a p p l i c a t i o n a r e t o be found, t h e r u l e a p p e a r s t o be q u i t e gene r a l t h a t where t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e v a c a t i o n , d i s c o n t i n u a n c e , o r a l t e r a t i o n of a p u b l i c s t r e e t o r highway by d i r e c t a c t i o n of p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s i s p r e s c r i b e d by s t a t u t e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y t o adhere t o such procedure i n o r d e r t h a t t h e v a c a t i o n o r a l t e r a t i o n be e f f e c t i v e ; nor a r e t h e p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s p r e c l u d e d by p r i n c i p l e s o f e s t o p p e l from denying t h e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t e n c e , o r a l t e r a t i o n , of t h e p u b l i c way i n t h e a b s e n c e of s u b s t a n t i a l compliance 175 A.L.R. w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y procedure 760, 762 ( 1 9 4 8 ) . . .. . . ." The r e l u c t a n c e t o a p p l y e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l t o governm e n t a l e n t i t i e s i s founded upon p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a tions. I t i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t l a n d s h e l d by t h e p u b l i c a r e t o be p r o t e c t e d and o n l y d i s p o s e d of where t h e r e h a s been compliance w i t h t h e law. The i n t e r e s t s of t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c s h o u l d n o t b e d e f e a t e d , f o r example, by t h e u n a u t h o r i z e d o r u n l a w f u l a c t s of p u b l i c a g e n t s o r o f f i c e r s . See Norman v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 597 P.2d 715, The p o l i c y of p r o t e c t i n g p u b l i c l a n d s and making s t a t u t e s t h e e x c l u s i v e method f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of p u b l i c l a n d s i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d by o u r Const:itution. A r t i c l e X, S e c t i o n 1 of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s t a t e s : 1 " (1) A l l l a n d s of t h e /state t h a t have been o r may be g r a n t e d by c o n g r e s s , o r a c q u i r e d by g i f t o r g r a n t o r d e v i s e from any p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a t i o n , s h a l l be p u b l i c l a n d s o f t h e s t a t e . They s h a l l be h e l d i n t r u s t f o r t h e p e o p l e , t o be d i s p o s e d of a s h e r e a f t e r p r o v i d e d , f o r t h e res p e c t i v e p u r p o s e s f o r which t h e y have been o r may be g r a n t e d , d o n a t e d o r d e v i s e d . " ( 2 ) - -c h l a n d o r any e s t a t e o r i n t e r e s t N su -o t h e r e i n s h a l l -e r be d i s p o s e d o f e x c e p t i n ev p u r s u a n c e g e n e r a l l a w s providing -f o r such d i s p o s i t i o n , o r u n t i l t h e f u l l m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e e s t a t e o r i n t e r e s t d i s p o s e d o f , t o be a s c e r t a i n e d i n such manner a s may b e - p r o v i d e d by law, h a s been p a i d o r s a f e l y s e c u r e d t o t h e (Emphasis added. ) state. " A s a r e s u l t of t h e s e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , we have s t a t e d i n p r e v i o u s cases t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e doct r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l t o governmental e n t i t i e s w i l l be looked upon w i t h d i s f a v o r . The d o c t r i n e w i l l o n l y be ap- p l i e d i n e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r where t h e r e i s manif e s t injustice. Mont. 226, 108 P. Von Tobel v. C i t y of Lewistown ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 4 1 910; B i l l i n g s v. P i e r c e Co. Mont. 255, 1 6 1 P.2d 636. ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 117 W must d e t e r m i n e , under t h e e p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , whether t h e d o c t r i n e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d h e r e . T h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , of c o u r s e , i s d e p e n d e n t upon whether t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l compliance w i t h Montana s t a t u t e s r e g a r d i n g t h e abandonment of roads. I n t h i s c a s e , r e s p o n d e n t s s u g g e s t a s one of t h e i r a r g u ments t h a t a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t number of s i g n a t u r e s t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of s e c t i o n 7-14-2601, MCA. T h a t s t a t u t e , a s h a s been p r e v i - ously stated, requires a petition t o contain the signatures o f e i t h e r t e n o r a m a j o r i t y o f f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e r o a d d i s t r i c t where abandonment i s s o u g h t . A p p e l l a n t s ' :?et:ition o b v i o u s l y d o e s n o t comply w i t h t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e s t a t u t e , s i n c e it only c o n t a i n s four s i g n a t u r e s . I t a l s o a p p e a r s , under t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d , p l i a n c e w i t h t h e second p a r t was i m p o s s i b l e . t h a t com- During o r a l argument, t h e p a r t i e s informed u s t h a t t h e e n t i r e G a l l a t i n County comprises o n l y one r o a d d i s t r i c t , i n which t h e r e a r e w e l l o v e r 40,000 r e s i d e n t s . A " m a j o r i t y , " t h e r e f o r e , would be more t h a n 20,000 s i g n a t u r e s . Because of t h e a b s u r d i t y of t h i s requirement, a p p e l l a n t s suggest t h a t t h e s t a t u t e should be c o n s t r u e d t o r e q u i r e o n l y t h e s i g n a t u r e s of " a m a j o r i t y o f t h o s e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d " by t h e abandonment. I t i s urged under such a c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t simply t h e s i g n a t u r e s o f t h o s e owning l a n d which immediately a d j o i n s t h e l a n d s o u g h t t o be abandoned would be s u f f i c i e n t . Although t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l p e r s o n s owning l a n d on C e n t r a l Avenue i n t h i s c a s e , o n l y t h r e e landowners own l o t s immediately a d j o i n i n g t h e n o r t h e r l y 1 0 0 f e e t of t h e s t r e e t . W e d e c l i n e t o a d o p t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n advanced by appellants. Adopting t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would f o r c e u s t o exceed o u r p r o p e r r o l e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s . The r o l e of a c o u r t i n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e i s s i m p l y t o ascert a i n and d e c l a r e i t s s u b s t a n c e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s been o m i t t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. I n t h i s connection, t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o t h e s t a t u t e i s t o be p u r s u e d i f possible. S e c t i o n 1-2-102, MCA. Here, t h e s t a t u t e s i m p l y s t a t e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n must c o n t a i n , a s one a l t e r n a t i v e , t h e s i g n a t u r e s of a " m a j o r i t y of f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e r o a d district." The s t a t u t e d o e s n o t s a y " a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e directly affected." Nor i s t h e r e any l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h i s was t h e d e s i r e of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e . F u r t h e r , even i f w e were t o a d o p t a p p e l l a n t s ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t h i s would r i d any problems of a p p l i c a t i o n . The p r e s e n t problem w i t h a p p l y i n g t h e "majority requirement" i s t h a t t h e s i z e of road d i s t r i c t s and t h e number of f r e e h o l d e r s t h e r e i n v a r y . Depending upon whether t h e r e i s one o r many r o a d d i s t r i c t s i n a c o u n t y , i t may be r e a s o n a b l e t o a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n a m a j o r i t y i n some circumstances while i t i s unreasonable i n o t h e r s . Similarly, t h e problem w i t h a p p e l l a n t s ' proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n l i e s i n d e t e r m i n i n g which landowners a r e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d . It is an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n t o say t h a t " d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d landowners" a r e t h o s e who own l o t s i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e l a n d s o u g h t t o be abandoned. Conceivably, o t h e r landowners b e s i d e s t h e s e a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e abandonment. A number o f c a s e s have h e l d t h a t a r e q u i r e d number of s i g n a t u r e s s p e c i f i e d i n a s t a t u t e f o r t h e abandonment, vacat i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n of a r o a d i s a m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t and t h a t t h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n s u c h s i g n a t u r e s f a l l s s h o r t o f subs t a n t i a l compliance. s i v e l i s t of cases. See 175 A.L.R. 760, 771, f o r a n e x t e n - F o r example, where a s t a t u t e f o r t h e v a c a t i o n o f a p u b l i c highway r e q u i r e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s of t w e l v e f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e c o u n t y , and a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d a p e t i t i o n f o r vacation containing only one s i g n a t u r e , a c o u r t held t h a t t h e board of commissioners was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a c t with respect t o t h e vacation. 67 1nd.App. 361, 119 N.E. 219. Eads v. Kumley ( 1 9 1 8 ) , There t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t t h e commissioners had o n l y such powers a s were c o n f e r r e d upon them by s t a t u t e , and where p r o c e d u r e s e n u n c i a t e d by s t a t u t e w e r e n o t complied w i t h , t h e p r o c e e d i n g nullity. Eads, 119 N . E . a t 221. was a I n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e same s t a t u t e i n a n o t h e r case where seven of s e v e n t e e n p e t i t i o n e r s f i l e d a w r i t t e n w i t h d r a w a l of t h e i r names from a p e t i t i o n f o r v a c a t i o n b e f o r e t h e r e was an assumption of j u r i s d i c t i o n , t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e commissioners w e r e w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o assume j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r . C u r r e n t (19201, 72 Ind-App. 3 6 3 , 125 N . E . Current v. 779. I n t h i s c a s e , w e do n o t t h i n k i t was a n u n r e a s o n a b l e burden f o r a p p e l l a n t s t o o b t a i n t e n s i g n a t u r e s on t h e i r abandonment p e t i t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y h e l d t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e r e was a f a i l u r e t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s on abandonment, t h e p r o c e e d i n g was v o i d initially. The comrnissioners were w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a c t w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e abandonment. A p p e l l a n t s h e r e r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e f a c t t h a t c o u n t y o f f i c i a l s and employees w e r e i n t r i c a t e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e a t t e m p t e d abandonment. Appellants contend t h a t t h e county s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d from i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e abandonment b e c a u s e t h e a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g noncompliance w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s w e r e t h e u n i l a t e r a l a c t s o f t h e county. County employees p r e - pared a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n providing space f o r only s i x s i g n a t u r e s , and a c o u n t y commissioner a p p a r e n t l y gave a p p e l l a n t s improper a d v i c e a s t o how t o c u r e d e f e c t s i n t h e p e t i t i o n once t h e o r d e r f o r abandonment had been i n v a l i dated. Although a p p e l l a n t s had, a r g u a b l y , e q u a l a c c e s s t o t h e law, w e t h i n k i n g e n e r a l t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s a r i g h t t o r e l y upon t h e a d v i c e and a c t i o n s of p u b l i c employees and o f f i cials. I n t h i s connection, w e note t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y properly advised a p p e l l a n t s of t h e s t a t u t o r y procedures f o r abandonment. I r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e n e g l i g e n c e of p u b l i c employees and o f f i c i a l s , however, t h e f o r e m o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n o u r minds l i e s w i t h t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t . T h i s c o u n t e r v a i l i n g p u b l i c p o l i c y h a s t a k e n on such importance t h a t it i s expressed i n our C o n s t i t u t i o n . Where p u b l i c l a n d s a r e d i s p o s e d o f and t h e r e h a s been i n s u f f i c i e n t compliance w i t h laws p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n , t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t must b e p r o t e c t e d . 719, 36 St.Rep. I n Norman, 597 P.2d a t a t 1098, w e s t a t e d : "We r e c o g n i z e t h a t i t w a s t h e n e g l i g e n c e of t h e S t a t e ' s a g e n t s t h a t caused t h e s i t u a t i o n which gave r i s e t o t h i s a p p e a l . However, t h e i n t e r e s t w e s e e k t o p r o t e c t i s t h a t of t h e c i t i z e n s of t h i s S t a t e t o r e c e i v e t h e h i g h e s t v a l u e from t h e s a l e of t h e l a n d s t h e i r S t a t e government h o l d s i n t r u s t f o r them. Strict compliance w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u tory provisions r e l a t i n g t o those lands i s t h e b e s t mode t o i n s u r e t h a t p r o t e c t i o n . It i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t h a t w h i l e e s t o p p e l may be e f f e c t e d a g a i n s t S t a t e government, i t may n o t be a s s e r t e d where i t would i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t i n lands. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted. 1 " Accordingly, w e hold, without addressing t h e remaining arguments r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o a p p l y t h e d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p - p e l a g a i n s t t h e county. A p p e l l a n t s have n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y complied w i t h s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r abandonment. There- f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s no b a s i s f o r even c o n s i d e r i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e doctrine. The o r d e r f o r abandonment was v o i d i n i t i a l l y b e c a u s e t h e commissioners d i d n o t have the authority t o act. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. W e concur: %ap%
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.
