HOLMSTROM LAND CO v HUNTER

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 14549 IN THE SUPRE2-B COURT O THE STA!I'E O IvDNI'ANA F F 1979 Plaintiff and Appllant , Defendant and Respondent. District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District, Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding. Appeal from: Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Mxtana For Respondent: -re, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, mntana Su3snitted on briefs: Filed: -g 'MFS" Decided: ,.)?.j March 29, 1979 5 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t . P l a i n t i f f Holmstrom Land Company (Holmstrom) a p p e a l s from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Meagher County, d a t e d May 1 6 and J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 8 , i n f a v o r o f W i l l i a m R. H u n t e r . T h i s a p p e a l i n v o l v e s a d i s p u t e o v e r c h a r g e s made by t h e w a t e r commissioner f o r d i s p e n s i n g w a t e r s i n t h e Newlan Creek Water D i s t r i c t . On O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , Fourteenth J u d i c i a l District, i n a proceeding concerning d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e w a t e r s o f Newlan C r e e k , i s s u e d a n o r d e r g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n e r s who had been a p p o i n t e d t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e w a t e r s o f Newlan C r e e k . The h e a r i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h e o r d e r was h e l d on c o m p l a i n t of R o b e r t J. W e i t z , p r e s i d e n t o f Holmstrom. Holmstrom h a s d e c r e e d w a t e r r i g h t s i n b o t h Sheep Creek and Newlan Creek l o c a t e d i n Meagher County. I t u s e s Newlan Creek a s a con- d u i t f o r t h e t r a n s f e r o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1000 i n c h e s of Sheep Creek w a t e r t o i t s h e a d g a t e s and d i t c h e s . The c o u r t o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 7 6 , c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e commissioner: "Water Commissioner F u l l e r was t o l d by t h e C o u r t t o k e e p t r a c k o f w a t e r from Sheep Creek coming i n t o Newlan C r e e k , and a s s e s s Holmstrom Land Company f o r Sheep Creek Water d i s t r i b u t e d t h r o u g h Newlan C r e e k , i f h e u s e s any o f h i s t i m e i n d i s p e n s i n g i t . Holmstrom Land Company t o g e t t h e amount o f w a t e r from Sheep Creek t h e y p u t i n t o Newlan C r e e k , less a b o u t 1 0 p e r c e n t f o r seepage, e t c . " D e f e n d a n t H u n t e r was a p p o i n t e d w a t e r commissioner on June 7 , 1977, t o c a r r y o u t t h e O c t o b e r o r d e r . I n 1977 Holmstrom was b i l l e d by d e f e n d a n t on t h e b a s i s o f b o t h Newlan Creek and Sheep Creek w a t e r s . Holmstrom r e f u s e d t o pay, and d e f e n d a n t p a d l o c k e d Holmstrom's h e a d g a t e i n an attempt t o collect. Holmstrom t h e n b r o u g h t t h i s action. H u n t e r d e f e n d e d on t h e g r o u n d s h e was o n l y f o l - l o w i n g t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r ; t h a t Holmstrom was n o t p u r s u i n g t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r a l remedy; and t h a t Holmstrom was t r y i n g t o c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k t h e October 1 8 , 1976, o r d e r even t h o u g h i t had n o t a p p e a l e d t h a t o r d e r . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t H u n t e r was a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o i t s o r d e r , t h a t t h e c h a r g e s were r e a s o n a b l e , and t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r H u n t e r t o r e t a i n c o u n s e l . The c o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d t h a t s e c t i o n s 89-1012 and 89-1013, 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 R.C.M. and 85-5-205 MCA, con- s t i t u t e d t h e s o l e remedy f o r o n e who o b j e c t s t o t h e c h a r g e s o f a w a t e r commissioner a p p o i n t e d by c o u r t o r d e r . The c o u r t f u r t h e r concluded t h i s s u i t c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k upon i t s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976. The c o u r t t h e n o r d e r e d judgment f o r H u n t e r and o r d e r e d Holmstrom t o pay t h e whole sum owing t o H u n t e r . After an evidentiary hearing t h e court a l s o o r d e r e d , on J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 8 , t h a t Holmstrom pay H u n t e r $750 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s . A l t h o u g h Holmstrom l i s t s e i g h t i s s u e s on a p p e a l , w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e two f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s w i l l dispose of t h i s appeal: 1. Whether t h e a t t e m p t t o s e c u r e t h e r e l i e f s e t f o r t h i n t h e c o m p l a i n t o f Holmstrom c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k upon t h e c o u r t o r d e r d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976? 2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t i n o r d e r i n g Holmstrom t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s t o H u n t e r ? The p r a y e r t o Holmstrom's c o m p l a i n t r e q u e s t s i n m a j o r p a r t t h a t " t h e a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e Commissioner b e r e c a l c u l a t e d i n accordance w i t h t h e u s e s of t h e w a t e r s of ~ e w l a n C r e e k , e x c l u s i v e o f any _n d a l l u s e s - f w a t e r s - Sheep a _ _ o of Creek . . ." (Emphasis a d d e d . ) That t h i s requested r e l i e f i s an attempt t o negate t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976, s p e c i f i c a l l y d i r e c t i n g t h e w a t e r commissioner t o k e e p t r a c k of w a t e r coming i n t o Newlan Creek from Sheep Creek a n d t o a s s e s s Holmstrom f o r any t i m e u s e d i n d i s p e n s i n g Sheep Creek w a t e r , i s obvious. Such a n a t t e m p t c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e s a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k on t h e e a r l i e r o r d e r . The g e n e r a l r u l e i n c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n i s w e l l e x p r e s s e d i n t h e following language: "'By " c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k " i s meant " e v e r y p r o c e e d i n g i n which t h e i n t e g r i t y o f a judgment i s c h a l l e n g e d , e x c e p t t h o s e made i n t h e a c t i o n w h e r e i n t h e judgment i s r e n d e r e d o r by a p p e a l , a n d e x c e p t s u i t s b r o u g h t t o o b t a i n d e c r e e s deab .' c l a r i n g judgments t o b e v o i d - i n i t i o . " [Citations omitted. 1 .. " I t h a s been w e l l - s e t t l e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t a c o u r t w i l l o v e r t u r n a judgment on c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k o n l y i f t h e judgment i s v o i d on i t s f a c e , a n d i t a p p e a r s a f f i r m a t i v e l y from t h e judgment r o l l t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r committed a n a c t i n e x c e s s o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . " E s t a t e o f Hofmann ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 387, 395, 318 P.2d 230, 236. I t t h u s becomes t h e d u t y of t h i s C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e i n i t i a l o r d e r i s v o i d on i t s f a c e o r beyond t h e powers o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . S e c t i o n 89-891.1, R.C.M. W e conclude it i s not. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-411 MCA, p r o v i d e s : "Water a p p r o p r i a t e d u n d e r a n e x i s t i n g r i g h t o r p u r s u a n t t o t h i s a c t may b e t u r n e d i n t o t h e n a t u r a l c h a n n e l o f a n o t h e r s t r e a m , o r from a r e s e r v o i r i n t o t h e n a t u r a l c h a n n e l , and w i t h drawn o r d i v e r t e d a t a p o i n t downstream f o r b e n e f i c i a l u s e , b u t t h e w a t e r s of t h a t stream may n o t t h e r e b y be d i m i n i s h e d i n q u a n t i t y o r d e t e r i o r a t e d i n q u a l i t y t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of a p r i o r appropriator." Thus, i t i s incumbent upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a s t h e e n t i t y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u p e r v i s i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w a t e r among a l l a p p r o p r i a t o r s a n d f o r s u p e r v i s i n g a l l w a t e r commis- s i o n e r s , s e c t i o n 89-896, MCA, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-406 t o i n s u r e t h a t a p p r o p r i a t o r s of Newlan Creek w a t e r w e r e n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by Holmstrom's u s e of Newlan Creek a s a c o n d u i t f o r i t s Sheep Creek w a t e r s . A l e g i t i m a t e and l o g i c a l way t o do t h i s i s t o r e q u i r e t h e w a t e r commissioners t o measure t h e f l o w o f Sheep Creek w a t e r i n t o Newlan Creek i n d i s p e n s i n g t h e w a t e r s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e c r e e d r i g h t s of the parties. Water commissioner H u n t e r , a l t h o u g h a p p o i n t e d a f t e r t h e October 1976 o r d e r , i s n e v e r t h e l e s s bound by i t . Luppold v . L e w i s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 34 St.Rep. 227, 231. - Mont . , 563 P.2d 538, 542, Holmstrom, a s t h e h o l d e r of t h e de- c r e e d r i g h t s , must pay f o r t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e c o s t s of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s f e e s and compensation. R.C.M. S e c t i o n 89-1001(5), 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-5-101(4) MCA. I f Holmstrom wanted t o c h a l l e n g e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r of October 1 8 , 1976, as i t r e l a t e d t o a s s e s s m e n t s of h i s Sheep Creek w a t e r , t h e p r o p e r l e g a l p r o c e d u r e would have been a n a p p e a l w i t h i n t h e p r o p e r t i m e . M.R.App.Civ.P. Rules l ( a ) and 5 , Holmstrom d i d n o t a p p e a l . The c u r r e n t c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k i s n o t a p e r m i s s i b l e means by which t o make t h i s c h a l l e n g e . Nor d o e s i t a p p e a r , i n f a c t , t h a t t h e order i s challengeable. C o n v e r s e l y , i f Holmstrom wanted t o c h a l l e n g e t h e apport i o n m e n t of f e e s and e x p e n s e s by t h e w a t e r commissioner, i t s h o u l d have f o l l o w e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n s 891012 and 89-1013, 5-205 MCA. R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 T h i s i t a l s o f a i l e d t o do. and 85- Therefore, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r of October 1 8 , 1976, and t h e w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s a s s e s s m e n t f i l e d i n J u l y 1977 a r e f i n a l and binding. On t h i s f i r s t i s s u e , t h e judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t Court i s affirmed. A s t o t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o H u n t e r , the Dis- t r i c t C o u r t a f t e r r e c e i v i n g e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f a n award f o r $959, awarded f e e s i n t h e amount o f $750. Although t h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e s e f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t found i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r H u n t e r t o r e t a i n c o u n s e l i n t h i s m a t t e r and c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t had t h e power, as a c o u r t o f e q u i t y , t o o r d e r Holmstrom t o pay H u n t e r ' s r e a s o n a b l e attorney fees. W e agree. T h i s s u i t was b r o u g h t a g a i n s t H u n t e r p e r s o n a l l y f o r a c t s undertaken i n h i s capacity a s a duly appointed water commissioner a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o a l a w f u l c o u r t o r d e r . Were w a t e r commissioners r e q u i r e d t o defend o u t of t h e i r p e r s o n a l f u n d s a g a i n s t s u i t s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them f o r t h e i r o f f i c i a l a c t s , no o n e would b e w i l l i n g t o s e r v e a s w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n e r . Where t h e s u i t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , a s i n t h i s c a s e , i t i s o n l y p r o p e r t h a t t h e c o s t s s h o u l d b e b o r n e by t h e w a t e r u s e r i n s t i t u t i n g the action. C o u r t s o f e q u i t y h a v e t h e i n h e r e n t power t o g r a n t t h e r e l i e f t h a t justice requires. Mont. 507, 512-13, T i f f a n y v . Uhde ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 123 216 P.2d 375, 378. I n a recent case, t h i s Court s t a t e d : "The c o u r t a l s o r e s e r v e s t h e power t o g r a n t comThis i s p l e t e r e l i e f u n d e r i t s e q u i t y power. meant t o e s t a b l i s h no s r e c e d e n t , b u t m u s t b e d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s . " I f e q u i t y i s t o b e done i n a s i t u a t i o n s u c h a s t h i s , t h e a t t o r n e y f e e must b e s u s t a i n e d . P l a i n t i f f Anderson s o u g h t t o b r i n g d e f e n d a n t Eggan i n t o t h e l a w s u i t when s h e had a s s e r t e d no c l a i m a g a i n s t him and had no i n t e n t i o n o f d o i n g s o . For t h i s reason s h e submitted a motion t o d i s m i s s Plaintiff which was g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Anderson f o r c e d h e r t o s e c u r e t h e s e r v i c e s o f a n a t t o r n e y t o examine t h e c a s e a n d s u b m i t a m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s and t h r o u g h no f a u l t o n h e r p a r t t o I f defendant i n c u r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . Eggan i s d i s m i s s e d from t h e c a s e a n d n o t awarded a t t o r n e y f e e s , s h e w i l l n o t b e made whole o r re- t u r n e d t o t h e same p o s i t i o n as b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f Anderson a t t e m p t e d t o b r i n g h e r i n t o t h e l a w s u i t . " Mont. , 580 P . 2d Foy v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 1 4 , 116-17, 35 St.Rep. 811, 814. The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s a n a l o g o u s . Holm- s t r o m s u e d H u n t e r , b u t i t s r e a l q u a r r e l was w i t h t h e o r d e r of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A t no t i m e h a s Holmstrom a s s e r t e d t h a t H u n t e r s e r i o u s l y d e v i a t e d from t h e o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t . J u s t a s Anderson had no r e a s o n o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r d r a g g i n g Eggan i n t o t h e l a w s u i t i n t h e above c i t e d c a s e , Holmstrom had no r e a s o n t o s u e H u n t e r . J u s t i c e , e q u i t y and good c o n s c i e n c e d i c t a t e t h a t Holmstrom s h o u l d b e a r t h e c o s t s o f t h e defense of t h e a c t i o n . The award and amount o f a t t o r n e y f e e s i s affirmed. No p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s b e i n g f i l e d o n a p p e a l , they a r e hereby denied. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . W e concur: C h i e f J u s t i c e H a s w e l l c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g i n part: Mr. I c o n c u r i n a f f i r m i n g t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t Court on t h e f i r s t i s s u e . I d i s s e n t from t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n my d i s s e n t i n Foy v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 , 35 S t . R e p . 811, 815. An award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s u n d e r t h e g u i s e of making t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y whole i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a n y c a s e ; p e r m i t s s u c h a n award i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t ; and c o n s t i t u t e s a c l e a r example o f j u d i c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n . Where n e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o r t h e p a r t i e s h a v e p r o v i d e d f o r s u c h a n award, I would a b s t a i n from g r a n t i n g i t . 4;&~kChief ~ u s t y c e

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.