HOWARD v STATE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 80-488 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 IVAN HOWARD, Plaintiff and Respondent, STATE OF MONTANA, Department of Military Affairs, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Broadwater Honorable Peter Meloy, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Denny Moreen argued and Daniel J. Hoven argued, Assistant Attorneys General, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Patrick F. Hooks and Tom Budewitz argued, Townsend, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: JUN 2 4 1982 March 2, 1982 3q Mr. J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n the Court. This appeal Ivan Howard, Affairs from an results against (hereinafter the the delivered State the action for of by a d e v e l o p e r , Department State) Opinion of inverse Military condemnation. Following a j u r y v e r d i c t f o r t h e S t a t e i n t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l District, Broadwater County, the Howard's m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l . This dispute involves Hills area southwest owned by until 1978. of In 1978 R o b e r t c h a s e d t h e l a n d , made up o f for $20B an a c r e . 183 the court granted The S t a t e a p p e a l s . acres Townsend, sheep ranchers, trial in the Montana. Toma The family, Bateman and Limestone land from the was 1920s I v a n Howard p u r - e l e v e n p a t e n t e d mining c l a i m s , Before completing t h e s a l e , Howard and Bateman v i s i t e d t h e p r o p e r t y t h r e e t i m e s and o r d e r e d a t i t l e commitment from S u r e t y T i t l e Company of H e l e n a . From two- 1958 u n t i l t o four-week 1971, been used each for year. Guard conducted annual t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n s i n t h e Limestone H i l l s a r e a , which i n v o l v e d o t h e r weapons. the National t h e use of a r t i l l e r y s h e l l s and From 1 9 7 1 t o t h e p r e s e n t , t h e same l a n d h a s weekend training Throughout this froin time, spring until the National fall Guard of has o p e r a t e d w i t h a s p e c i a l u s e p e r m i t from t h e Bureau o f Land Management the land permit will surrounding and the the State mining of Montana, claims. The which own current e x p i r e i n 1983. Bateman Guard's and presence. Howard Neither were Bateman did not in discuss of the National t h e Tornas n o r t h e t i t l e commit- ment m e n t i o n e d t h e p r o b l e m . was common knowledge unaware The N a t i o n a l t h e Townsend the sale area, with Guard's but local presence Howard and realtors or other citizens. The Toina-Howard 1978. c o n t r a c t was consurnmated on March 2 7 , Howard p l a n n e d t o s u b d i v i d e t h e 1 8 3 a c r e s i n t o r e c r e - ational homesite e a r l y May, sell a r e a s and for it an $500 acre. In Howard p u t a g e n e r a l a d f o r r e c r e a t i o n a l l a n d i n t h e I n d e p e n d e n t Record and r e c e i v e d n i n e t e e n r e s p o n s e s . May Howard 6, "homesites" planned but was N a t i o n a l Guard. meet to stopped prospective buyers at the roadblocks by erected by the T h i s was when Howard f i r s t became a w a r e o f the National Guard's presence. one lot $58B acre for iioward howitzers. the property, On an to abandoned however, Subsequently, a buyer any who further Howard liked to attempts sold watch to sell and f i l e d s u i t a g a i n s t t h e S t a t e f o r i n v e r s e condemnation. The j u r y f o u n d i n f a v o r o f t h e S t a t e . motion for a new trial, which was Howard f i l e d a granted. The State appeals. The first issue District Court erred raised on appeal whether is the in defining "taking" a s "actual inter- ference with use of t h e property." Jury adopted Instruction by the interference trial with No. rights." defines use the the of with interference In view of proposed court, proposed d e f i n i t i o n o f " t a k i n g "actual 13, our and as "actual The State's the court refused, disturbance holding Howard "taking" property." ," w h i c h or by herein of that is property Howard pur- chased t h e land a f t e r its inverse condemnation, t h e d i s t i n c t i o n is not c r u c i a l t o t h i s case. Using Howard's theory " i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t k ~ use" manuevers did not d e v e l o p e d i n 1978. of inverse occurred interfere with in condemnation, 1978, the as land Thus, t h e damages awarded, the the military until it was i f a n y , would be determined State's by .the affirmative 1978 p r o p e r t y defenses of value. Further, prescriptive the easement, l a c h e s , a n d s t a t u t e o f l i m i t a t i o n s would b e i n a p p l i c a b l e . In would contrast, occur under whenever property rights. the there Thus, was i f t h e l a n d was u n u s e d , by the 1958 relies Or. "taking" interference with i f a n y , o c c u r r e d when i n 1958. the The m a n u e v e r s , damage, property on 178, even P.2d any, and would the be State's W hold f o r the S t a t e . e Thornburg 376 if values a f f i r m a t i v e d e f e n s e s c o u l d be g i v e n . Howard a i n t e r f e r e d with t h e r i g h t t o use t h e Consequently, determined theory, actual the "taking," t h e m i l i t a r y manuevers began property. State's v. to of support Portland (1962), 233 theory. T h o r n b u r g was a l a n d o w n e r n e a r t h e P o r t l a n d a i r p o r t who s u e d f o r e x t r e m e n o i s e . tinguished. tion. But, compensation. taken . . I' for public Art. Sec. I, The Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n , his "use" is e a s i l y d i s - Thornburg The O r e g o n C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s t h a t p r o p e r t y s h a l l n o t be just 100, Port " [p] r i v a t e . . . use without 1 8 , Oregon C o n s t i t u - in contrast, provides t h a t " [ p l r i v a t e p r o p e r t y s h a l l n o t b e t a k e n o r damaged f o r p u b l i c u s e without j u s t compensation. 11, S e c . . ." (Emphasis added.) Art. 2 9 , 1 9 7 2 Mont. C o n s t . ; c f . Rauser v. Toston I r r i g a - t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 5 3 8 , 5 6 5 P.2d 632. The m o r e r e s t r i c t i v e Oregon C o n s t i t u t i o n r e q u i r e d t h e c o u r t t o a d o p t a n u i s a n c e t h e o r y i n o r d e r t o compensate Thornburg. this, the Oregon court discusses actual To d o interference with t h e u s e o f p r o p e r t y and i g n o r e s t h e t r e s p a s s r e q u i r e m e n t . Thornburg a l s o involved a changing property rights. The original propeller interference with planes were not nearly a s noisy a s t h e jets t h a t motivated Thornburg's s u i t . The States case ( 1 9 4 6 ) , 106 C t . used kids instant to Atwater as a safety zone for use patrolled, of the land constituted interference with a c t u a l use. the Inc. 4 9 , 5 4 5 P.2d Atwater clairils, the National 1958, zone, The the use 93 Ida. which was "taking" was the property, not the Symms v . 574, N e l s o n Sand 468 P.2d 306, 311; S t a t e Highway Commission ( 1 9 7 6 ) , 2 7 4 105, 108. parallels used the only instant for case. grazing The until mining were 1978, ( i f e v e r t a k e n ) f o r m i l i t a r y u s e i n 1 9 5 8 , when Guard t o use t h e land. in to The c o u r t f o u n d safety S t a t e ex r e l . (1970), although f i r s t "taken" the taking. right L i n c o l n Loan Company v . Or. as a See a l s o : and G r a v e l , an a d j o i n i n g from t h e p r o p e r t y althougli income i t was u s e d o c c a s i o n a l l y f o r h u n t i n g d u c k s . the land P l a i n t i f f had n e v e r u s e d , o c c u p i e d o r r e n t e d t h e l a n d a n d r e c e i v e d no that United v. 196, where tile p l a i n t i f f ' s C1. f r o m 1941-1944 gunnery range. similar is f i r s t i n t e r f e r e d with It follows t h a t i f the t r i a l the the owner's "taking" right occurred c o u r t should have g i v e n i n s t r u c t i o n s on p r e s c r i p t i v e e a s e m e n t s , s t a t u t e s o f l i m i t a t i o n s and l a c h e s . The case is controlled by the fact that Howard purchased t h i s l a n d a f t e r i n v e r s e condemnation o c c u r r e d . was, therefore, condemnation. , Valdez 642 p r e c l u d e d from c l a i m i n g damages f o r i n v e r s e Knight v. C i t y of B i l l i n g s ( 1 9 8 2 ) , P.2d (Alaska unnecessary He for 141, 39 1981), us to St.Rep. 624 P.2d consider 385; 802. the Williams It issue is, of Mont. v. City of therefore, whether c o u r t a b u s e d i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l . the The o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t g r a n t i n g a new t r i a l i s r e v e r s e d and t h e j u r y v e r d i c t r e i n s t a t e d . W concur: e ,.' \ - 7, justices I
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.
