STATE v FOURTH JUD DIST COURT

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-453 I N THE SUPREBE COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTAXA 1985 STATE ex r e l . , JOHN F O S S , Relator, D I S T R I C T COURT O F THE FOURTH J U D I C I A L D I S T R I C T O F THE STATE OF MONTANA, I N AI'JD FOR THE COUNTY OF RAVALLI, AND THE WARD I R R I G A T I O N DISTRICT, Respondents. ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Relator: Loble & Pauly, Helena, Montana F o r Respondents: Recht & Greef; C h a r l e s H. Submitted: Decided: Recht, Hamilton, Montana January 21, 1985 June 1 3 , 1 9 8 5 -- -- Clerk Mr. Justice L.C. Court. Gulbrandson delivered the Opinion of the Relator, John Foss, petitions this Court to review by a writ of certiorari an order of the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, Ravalli County, holding him in contempt of court. This proceeding is a continuation of Ravalli County, Cause No. 6999, "In the Matter of the Establishment and Organization of the Ward Irrigation District." The District Court's continuing jurisdiction over the District, and this action, began with the petition filed by certain parties to form the Ward Irrigation District on April 6, 1938. General- ly, the only actions involving the District that the District Court has been called to rule upon has been audits, administrative matters, petitions for the inclusion of lands, and other matters pertaining to the operation of the District. The controversy that eventually led to this Cause No. 84-453, and its companion case, Cause No. 84-298, was first brought before the District Court in 1979. On April 30, 1979, Ralph Springer, Ronald M. Porter and George W. Else, all commissioners of the Ward Irrigation District filed affidavits with the District Court alleging that John Foss, relator in this action, "without permission removed padlocks from diversion dam [sic] in Ward Irrigation Ditch and refused to replace or . commissioner (s) " return locks to Ward Irrigation Based upon those affidavits, the District Court issued a temporary restraining order and, on June 4, 1979, held a hearing on the order to show cause why the temporary restraining order should not be made permanent. Both the Irrigation District and John Foss were represented at that hearing, and both presented evidence pertaining to the control of the headgate in issue. The District Court, in that action, found court. The against John court's Foss administration, headgates that J o h n F o s s was order from included a interfering regulation, not in contempt temporary "in any of injunction way with the o r c o n t r o l o f t h e dams, d i t c h e s , and o t h e r m a t t e r s p e r t a i n i n g t o t h e [District]." F u r t h e r , t h e J u n e 11, 1979 o r d e r d i r e c t e d J o h n F o s s a n d o t h e r members o f t h e F o s s r a n c h t o a p p e a r on August 3 1 , 1979, t o show c a u s e why t h e t e m p o r a r y i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d n o t b e made permanent. The transcript indicates that time the a t the District Court i s s u e d t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n , it s t r o n g l y urged such the Foss Ranch adjudication of the to seek relative another rights waters of t h e affected ditches, adjudication i n the remedy, and as priorities in an the i n s t e a d o f s e e k i n g t h e same injunctive action. The court stated: "Well, there has been considerable testimony concerning water r i g h t s , water r i g h t s o n Camas C r e e k , p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n s i n c l u d i n g p o i n t s o f d i v e r s i o n on Camas C r e e k . I don't believe those issues a r e properly before the court a t this time. I would s t r o n g l y u r g e counsel t o p u r s u e t h o s e remedies. Obviously you [ c o u n s e l f o r t h e F o s s e s ] f e e l t h a t M r . Foss h a s a c a u s e o f a c t i o n , b u t once again I d o n ' t f e e l they a r e properly before t h e court a t t h i s t i m e . There a r e j u d i c i a l remedies a v a i l a b l e i f he d o e s h a v e s u c h a c a u s e o f a c t i o n , and a s I s a i d b e f o r e , I would s t r o n g l y u r g e you t o pursue those. ... "I w i l l set t h e o r d e r f o r 60 d a y s t o g i v e you a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o f i l e a n w h a t I would d o i s s e t i t action, f o r a n o t h e r show c a u s e h e a r i n g t o show why it s h o u l d n ' t b e made p e r m a n e n t i f you h a v e n o t i n f a c t s o u g h t a n o t h e r remedy. " ... Counsel for the Fosses did not petition a d j u d i c a t i o n o f w a t e r r i g h t s p r i o r t o t h e August hearing. At that hearing, I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t appeared, only the counsel for 31, for an 1979, the and a d v i s e d t h e c o u r t t h a t n o further orders w e r e requested, stating: " C o u n s e l f o r t h e F o s s e s , Doug S k e l s e t , h a s asked t h a t we c o n t i n u e t h e temporary order i n force without date. I have no o b j e c t i o n t o t h a t , your honor, a s long a s it i s understood t h a t a t any time I can r e n o t i c e t h e matter before t h e c o u r t t o make it permanent. "The court: So ordered, thank you." N o t h i n g a p p a r e n t l y happened f o r t h e n e x t s e v e r a l y e a r s . N e i t h e r t h e D i s t r i c t a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e c o u r t t o make t h e temporary i n j u n c t i o n permanent, nor d i d t h e Fosses p e t i t i o n f o r a determination of water r i g h t s . Then, on J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 3 , Dean F r o s t , Ronald P o r t e r and Ralph S p r i n g e r , a l l commission- e r s o f t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t f i l e d a f f i d a v i t s w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a l l e g i n g t h a t M i l l o Huggins, a r e l a t i v e o f t h e Fosses, and interfered system. acting with the in her capacity operation of the as agent thereof, District's headgate Based on t h e s e a f f i d a v i t s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s s u e d a n o t h e r t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r and o r d e r t o show c a u s e . A h e a r i n g o n ' t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was s e t f o r J u l y 7, 1983. P r i o r t o t h a t , t h e Fosses f i l e d with t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a " R e q u e s t f o r D e t e r m i n a t i o n o f R e l a t i v e Water R i g h t s , " a s k i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e t h e n a t u r e and e x t e n t of t h e w a t e r r i g h t s o f t h e v a r i o u s p a r t i e s i n v o l v e d i n t h i s litigation, and t o d e t e r m i n e t h e r e l a t i v e p r i o r i t i e s o f t h e w a t e r s i n Hayes C r e e k , Creek. t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i t c h and Camas H e a r i n g s on t h e t e m p o r a r y r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w e r e h e l d on J u l y 7 and J u l y 2 6 , by c o u n s e l . 1983. Both p a r t i e s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d The D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s t a t i n g t h a t it had h e a r d t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e v a r i o u s w i t n e s s e s , argument o f c o u n s e l , and h a v i n g r e v i e w e d t h e p l e a d i n g s on t h e r e c o r d , Huggins in contempt 1979, i n j u n c t i o n . of court found M i l l o f o r v i o l a t i n g t h e August 31, F u r t h e r , t h e D i s t r i c t Court continued t h e i n j u n c t i o n i n e f f e c t by o r d e r i n g : Huggins, John Foss, the "3. M i l l o owners o f t h e F o s s r a n c h , t h e r e l a t i v e s , servants, agents and employees are h e r e b y o r d e r e d and e n j o i n e d from i n t e r f e r i n g i n a n y way, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r e c t l y , w i t h t h e a c t i v i t i e s of t h e Ward I r r i g a t i o n D i s t r i c t , i t s commissioners, ditch walkers, agents and employees. "4. Millo Huggins, John Foss, the owners o f t h e F o s s r a n c h , t h e r e l a t i v e s , servants, agents and employees, are h e r e b y o r d e r e d and e n j o i n e d from i n t e r f e r i n g i n a n y way, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r indirectly with the administration, regulation, o r c o n t r o l o f t h e dams, d i t c h e s , h e a d g a t e s and o t h e r m a t t e r s pertaining to the Ward Irrigation District." M i l l o Huggins d i d n o t a s k t h i s C o u r t t o r e v i e w by c e r t i o r a r i t h e o r d e r adjudging h e r i n contempt. The Fosses' petition f o r an adjudication of w a t e r r i g h t s went ahead i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . preliminaries, was h e a r d After several i n c l u d i n g a s u b s t i t u t i o n o f judge, 14, on December H o l t e r , D i s t r i c t Judge. 1 9 8 3 , by t h e H o n o r a b l e R o b e r t M. i s s u e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s on That o r d e r i s t h e s u b j e c t o f t h e appeal i n 1984. Cause No. the matter Judge H o l t e r , a f t e r h e a r i n g evidence and r e v i e w i n g t h e r e c o r d April 17, relative 84-298. in The n e x t summer, 1984, t h i s m a t t e r a r o s e . Affida- v i t s o f t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s o f t h e D i s t r i c t and a m o t i o n by t h e D i s t r i c t f o r a n o r d e r h o l d i n g John F o s s i n c o n t e m p t o f c o u r t were f i l e d . T h i s m a t t e r was h e a r d by J u d g e Henson and i n h i s findings recognized he the August 4, 1983 o r d e r , (quoted a b o v e ) found t h a t J o h n F o s s had been a w a r e o f s a i d o r d e r , and found a l s o t h a t h e had w i l l f u l l y v i o l a t e d i t s t e r m s . found John Foss in contempt of court, fined him He then $500 and s e n t e n c e d him t o s e r v e f i v e d a y s i n t h e R a v a l l i County j a i l s u s p e n d e d on c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s . granted the costs. John Ward Foss Irrigation The D i s t r i c t C o u r t f u r t h e r District appea1.s from t h i s attorneys order, fees and presenting the f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s f o r review: 1. nor is T h a t no v a l i d i n j u n c t i o n o r d e r was ever i s s u e d and injunction a remedy available in this proceeding; therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was p o w e r l e s s t o f i n d r e l a t o r i n contempt. T h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t j u d g e no l o n g e r had j u r i s - 2. diction t o t r y the matter. That t h e District Court e r r e d i n r e q u i r i n g r e l a t o r 3. F o s s t o pay a t t o r n e y ' s f e e s . O r e v i e w i n g a c o n t e m p t c i t a t i o n by w r i t o f c e r t i o r a r i , n we a r e limited t o t h e following considerations: whether t h e l o w e r c o u r t had j u r i s d i c t i o n t o i s s u e t h e o r d e r and s e c o n d l y , whether there Marriage of i s evidence supporting t h e Smith (Mont. 1984), 686 same. P.2d I n Re t h e 4 1 St.Rep. 912, 2325; M i l a n o v i c h v. M i l a n o v i c h (Mont. 1 9 8 2 ) , 655 P.2d St.Rep. 1293, 963; 37 Graveley Schneider St.Rep. and Relator jurisdiction v. 1728; Ostwald In the Hammerbacker argues Matter (1980), that (Mont. of the 188 Mont. District the 1980), t o f i n d him i n c o n t e m p t . 617 P.2d Contempt 546, Court 963, 39 614 was of P.2d without S e c t i o n 3-1-501, MCA, states that: "The following a c t s o r omissions i n respect to a court of justice or proceedings t h e r e i n a r e contempts o f t h e authority of the court: " (e) disobedience judgment, order, court; of or . . ." Here, relator argues v i o l a t e d was n o t that "lawful" the any process order lawful of the h e was valid injunction injunction remedy Citing general the order a n c i l l a r y t o another available only was ever in this available rule when to have and t h e r e f o r e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had no j u r i s d i c t i o n t o f i n d him i n c o n t e m p t . no found that an H e argues t h a t issued, type injunction nor of is is an proceeding. an action a c t i o n and i s a n e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedy there is an underlying proceeding pending, section 27-19-101, MCA, and State ex rel. Working v. Mayor (1911), 43 Mont. 61, 114 P. 777, he points out that the only documents the District Court had before it prior to issuing the August 31, 1979, temporary injunction were the three affidavits filed by the Ward District commissioners. These affidavits do not contain the elements requisite to a pleading, and thus no action was pending at the time that order was issued. Relator's argument is without merit. He neglects to observe that he was found in contempt of court for violating the August 4, 1983, order. At the time of that order, at relators own instance, an action was pending. Although the existence of an underlying action was not specifically pled in the District's motion or the affidavits, the District Court in the 1983 order finding Millo Huggans in contempt, and making permanent the injunction stated that it had read "the pleadings" herein and was "advised thereof. " Further, the affidavits filed in support of the District's motion contain the necessary elements to find relator in contempt. Relator cites section 27-19-102, MCA and argues that an injunction is improper in this action because there was no "obligation existing in favor of the applicant." ment is also not persuasive. This argu- The August 4, 1983, order clearly obligated relator to refrain from tampering with any of the District's distribution system. Relator had notice of his obligation and willfully violated it. both had The District Court jurisdiction to issue the contempt order and had evidence before it to support the same. Secondly, relator argues that Judge Henson was without jurisdiction to find him in contempt because he had ceded jurisdiction of the underlying adjudication action to Judge Holter. This argument is also without merit. In Kuzara v. Kuzara (Mont. 1984), 682 P.2d 1371, 41 St.Rep. 1201, we stated: " T h i s C o u r t h a s h e l d t h a t a contempt proceeding i s e n t i r e l y independent of t h e c i v i l a c t i o n o u t o f which i t a r o s e . Myhre v . Myhre (1976) , 168 Mont. 5 2 1 , 548 P.2d 1395. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t therefore has t h e authority t o enforce i t s judgment e v e n t h o u g h a n a p p e a l i s pending thereon. Contempts are p u n i s h a b l e b e c a u s e of t h e n e c e s s i t y o f m a i n t a i n i n g t h e d i g n i t y o f and r e s p e c t t o w a r d s t h e c o u r t s and t h e i r d e c r e e s . " S e e a l s o , S t a t e e x r e l . Bacorn v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 2 5 ) , 73 Mont. 297, 236 P. ( 1 9 4 2 ) , 1 1 3 Mont. 553; S t a t e e x r e l . Enochs v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t 227, 123 P.2d 971; 1 7 Am.Jur.2d, Contempt, A s s t a t e d i n t h e a b o v e c a s e s , t h e power o f c o n t e m p t i s t o e n f o r c e t h e decorum o f t h e c o u r t , n o t t h e d i g n i t y o f any particular judge thereof. it Thus, does not matter that J u d g e Henson had c e d e d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e r t h e a d j u d i c a t i o n t o Judge H o l t e r , b e c a u s e a l l . t h a t h e was d o i n g i n t h i s a c t i o n was e n f o r c i n g a l a w f u l o r d e r o f t h e c o u r t . Finally, its exceeded relator argues jurisdiction when attorney's fees t o the D i s t r i c t . the District authorized an that it Court award of F i r s t , w e must n o t e t h a t a D i s t r i c t C o u r t may p r o p e r l y award a p a r t y , i n t h i s case the movant D i s t r i c t , c o s t s o f a l i t i g a t i o n u n d e r t h e a u t h o r i t y o f 25-10-103, P r i o r c a s e s h a v e l i m i t e d t h e amount o f t h e s e MCA. c o s t s t o what can b e t a k e n o u t o f t h e f i n e l e v i e d a g a i n s t t h e See S t a t e e x rel. N e t t v. contemnor. 72 Mont. Court 206, 232 P . 204; ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 4 1 Mont. (1909), 38 Mont. D i s t r i c t Court 204, S t a t e ex rel. 369, 99 D i s t r i c t Court 109 P. P. ( 1 9 0 0 ) , 2 4 Mont. 436; 434; Edwards v . District Dunlavey v . Doggett State 33, 60 P. (1925), ex rel. Flynn v. 493. The more d i f f i c u l t i n q u i r y i s w h e t h e r a D i s t r i c t C o u r t may award t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " i n a c o n t e m p t a c t i o n a t t o r ney's fees. We first must note the unique nature of a contempt a c t i o n . private party's, It is the state's interest, and n o t an.y t h a t i s v i n d i c a t e d by t h e i n v o c a t i o n o f t h i s A s w e s t a t e d i n Dunlavey v. D o g g e t t , supra.. power. "What w e d o h o l d i s t h a t c o n t e m p t p r o c e e d i n g s d o n o t f u r n i s h a remedy a v a i l able t o the plaintiff for the redress o r p r e v e n t i o n o f a p r i v a t e wrong. While s u c h p r o c e e d i n g s may h a v e t h e r e s u l t n f deterring t h e defendants from a g a i n i n t e r f e r i n g with plaintiff 's rights, s t i l l t h e o b j e c t t o be a t t a i n e d i s t h e v i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e d i g n i t y o f t h e aut h o r i t y o f t h e c o u r t , and n o t i n d e m n i t y f o r t h e p l a i n t i f f o r any judgment i n h i s favor. (Citations omitted.) "Again, it i s u r g e d t h a t b e c a u s e i n p r a c t i c e contempt proceedings a r e always i n s t i t u t e d a t t h e e x p e n s e o f t h e owner o f t h e w a t e r , he i s t h e one p r i m a r i l y i n t e r e s t e d , and s h o u l d b e r e i m b u r s e d f o r h i s expenditures i n connection thereI t i s u n d o u b t e d l y t r u e t h a t many with. owners d o f i n d t h e m s e l v e s i n a n u n f o r t u n a t e s i t u a t i o n when t h e i r w a t e r r i g h t s are violated; but t h i s is a subject for t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o deal with." 38 Mont. a t 210, 99 P. a t 438. The g e n e r a l r u l e i n Montana i s t h a t a p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y in an action statutory or is not entitled contractual to attorney's provision expressly s u c h , C a t e v . H a r g r a v e (Mont. 1 9 8 4 ) , 680 P.2d 697; Bovee v . 416, 417. Helland fees unless ( 1 9 1 6 ) , 52 Mont. provides a for 952, 4 1 St.Rep. 151, 155, 156 P.2d R e l a t o r c i t e s t o u s no s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y upon which we may uphold t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s award o f a t t o r n e y ' s F u r t h e r , w e do n o t f i n d t h a t t h i s c a s e f i t s w i t h i n t h e fees. exceptions 507, 511, equity recognized 580 P.2d power to i n Foy v . 114, 116 afford Anderson (upholding t h e c o u r t ' s general complete (awarding attorney's self-help); o r I n re M a r r i a g e o f P.2d 41 468, contempt also; action Williams, St.Rep. to fees 2391 enforce ". . . and ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 175 Mont. to relief) ; penalize Redfern (attorney's terms of Cate, reprehensible (Mont. fees divorce supra 1 9 8 4 ) , 692 awarded decree). in See Attorneys Fees t o t h e P r e v a i l i n g Party: Recovering Attorneys Law," 46 Mont.L.Rev. The order of Fees Under Montana 119, 121 (1985). the District Court finding contempt is hereby affirmed, and that portion awarding attorney's Statutory fees to the Ward relator in of the order Irrigation District is hereby reversed. We concur: 4 ' Chief Justice 1 / 7 ~ ~ .

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.