MATTER OF CREATION OF WEST GREAT F
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
No. 81-559 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 TN THE MATTER OF: THE CREATION OF THE WEST GREAT FALLS FLOOD CONTROL AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT Ex Rel: RICHARD AND GERDA GREENWOOD Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, In and for the County of Cascade, The Hon. H. William Coder, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Leo Graybill, Jr., Graybill, Ostrem, Warner Crotty, Great Falls, Montana & For Respondent: Swanberg, Koby, Swanberg, Great Falls, Montana & Matteucci, - Submitted on Briefs: Decided: - Nay 6 , 1982 July 16, 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. D a l y 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 . A p p e l l a n t s own t e n p l a t t e d l o t s i n t h e Sun R i v e r P a r k A d d i t i o n on t h e w e s t s i d e o f G r e a t F a l l s . Falls Flood C o n t r o l The West G r e a t and D r a i n a g e D i s t r i c t condemned these l o t s f o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b u i l d i n g a l e v e e t h e r e o n and o f f e r e d the appellants approximately drainage project's $35,000 appraiser based for the land. t h i s valuation c o n s i d e r a t i o n of t h e l a n d a s a s i n g l e t r a c t . The upon The a p p e l l a n t s c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y a r e e n t i t l e d t o a p p r o x i m a t e l y $55,000--the v a l u e t h e i r a p p r a i s e r d e r i v e d by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e p r o p e r t y a s ten platted lots. The appellants filed County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a remonstrance in the Cascade and t h e m a t t e r was h e a r d on J a n u a r y 7 , 1 9 8 1 , and F e b r u a r y 2 - 4 , 1981. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t r e q u i r e d t h e a p p e l l a n t s t o come f o r w a r d w i t h t h e i r e v i d e n c e and g a v e them t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h e i r damages. The mately value District $38,000. that the Court This figure Drainage a p p e l l a n t s be awarded. awarded was the appellants approximately D i s t r i c t had approxithe recommended same that the This appeal followed. The i s s u e s on a p p e a l c a n be summarized a s f o l l o w s : 1. for their D t h e a p p e l l a n t s h a v e a r i g h t t o be c o m p e n s a t e d o land according to its value as platted lots, r a t h e r than according t o its value a s a s i n g l e t r a c t ? 2. Who has the burden of proof in this type of p r o c e e d i n g and i n what o r d e r s h o u l d i t be p r e s e n t e d ? Appellants contend t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e i r l a n d was s u b - d i v i d e d and t h e p l a t r e c o r d e d , i t s h o u l d h a v e been v a l u e d on an i n d i v i d u a l l o t b a s i s r a t h e r t h a n a s a whole t r a c t . The a p p e l l a n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e l a n d must be d i v i d e d i n t o l o t s f o r i t s h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e - - r e s i d e n t i a l property. I n S t a t e v . H o b l i t t ( 1 9 3 0 ) , 87 Mont. this Court discussed the method that 403, 288 P. must be applied a r r i v e a t t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e by s t a t i n g : "The owner h a s t h e r i g h t t o o b t a i n t h e m a r k e t v a l u e o f t h e l a n d . b a s e d uDon i t s a v a i l a b i l ------i t y f o r t h e m o s t v a l u a b l e -u r p o s e f o r w h i c h p- i t c a n be used, whether s o used o r n o t .................................... (Montana Ry. Co. v , W a r r e n , 6 Mont. 275, 1 2 P. 641), b u t t o be a v a i l a b l e f o r a p u r p o s e means c a p a b l e o f b e----- s e d - f o- t h e p u r p oing u se - -r( W e b s t e r t s New I n t . D i c t i o n a r y ) , a n d , a s t h e m a r k e..................................u m m o n s t value a t the d a t e of t h e s c o n t r o l s , t h e l a n d m u s t b e shown t o h a v e b e e n marketable a t t h a t time f o r t h e purpose s t a t e d ( I n r e N i a g a r a Power Co., 1 3 3 Misc. Rep. 1 7 7 , 231 N.Y.S. 7 2 ) ; t h e showing must be t h a t t h e u s e is one t o which t h e l a n d may r e a s o n a b l y be a p p l i e d ( B l o x t o n v . Highway Commission, 225 Ky. 324, 8 S.W.2d 3 9 2 ) , s u c h a s would p r o b a b l y a f f e c t a p u r c h a s e r (Emmons v . U t i l i t i e s Co., 83 N . H . 1 8 1 , 1 4 1 A. 6 5 , 58 A.L.R. 788). " L e w i s , i n h i s work on Eminent Domain ( 3 d ' I t is s a i d i n Ed.) v o l . 2 , p. 1 2 3 2 , s a y s : some c a s e s t h a t i t i s p r o p e r t o c o n s i d e r e v e r y e l e m e n t of v a l u e which would be t a k e n i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a s a l e between p r i v a t e parties. But t h i s n e e d s some q u a l i f i c a t i o n s , s i n c e remote and s p e c u l a t i v e r e a s o n s a r e o f t e n u r g e d by t h e s e l l e r i n s u p p o r t of t h e v a l u a t i o n claimed. Some c a s e s s a y t h e owner is e n t i t l e d t o t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r t h e h i g h e s t and b e s t u s e t o which i t is adapted, T h i s is t r u e so f a r a s such adaptat i o n a f f e c t s t h e m a r k e t v a l u e . But t h e p r o p e r i n q u i r y i s , n o t what i s t h e v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y f o r any p a r t i c u l a r u s e , b u t what i s i t w o r t h on t h e m a r k e t , i n v i e w o f i t s adapt a t i o n f o r t h a t o r any o t h e r u s e . ' " S p e c u l a t i v e u s e s , remote and c o n j e c t u r a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s , a r e n o t t o be t a k e n i n t o cons i d e r a t i o n , a s t h e land must, a t t h e d a t e of t h e summons, h a v e been ' a v a i l a b l e ' f o r t h e , more v a l u a b l e u s e shown . 181, . "The r u l e announced i n t h e Warren and F o r b i s C a s e s , a b o v e , m u s t be a p p l i e d i n t h e l i g h t o f t h e s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n t h a t compensation must be d e t e r m i n e d on t h e b a s i s o f t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e l a n d a t t h e d a t e o f t h e summons, a n d , w h i l e t h e owner i s e n t i t l e d t o show t h e to m o s t v a l u a b l e u s e f o r which t h e l a n d i s a v a i l a b l e , t h i s is merely f o r t h e purpose of f i x i n g t h e a c t u a l h i g h e s t market v a l u e a t t h e t i m e s p e c i f i e d , and d i s c u s s i o n of u s e s t o which t h e l a n d i s n o t t h e n p u t i s b u t s a l e s t a l k , p e r s u a s i v e o n l y i n s o f a r a s i t would convince a prospective purchaser t h a t t h e p r i c e asked is r e a s o n a b l e under a l l of t h e c i r c u m s t a ~ ~ c eshown; t h e j u r y s t a n d s i n t h e s p o s i t i o n of t h e purchaser. For t h i s r e a s o n i t i s s a i d t h e t e s t i s , 'What is t h e m a r k e t v a l u e of t h e l a n d condemned f o r a n y commerc i a l v a l u e [ u s e ? ] of i t s own i n t h e i m m e d i a t e present, or i n reasonable a n t i c i p a t i o n in t h e , 288 P. a t 185-186. near future? . ." The most here is, "to important language be available for a . . . the used f o r t h a t purpose, from H o b l i t t purpose applicable c a p a b l e of l a n d must be shown t o h a v e been m a r k e t a b l e a t t h a t time f o r t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d Here, the l a n d was u n f i t lants because there for were being . . ." t h e p u r p o s e s t a t e d by a p p e l - flood zoning restrictions which p r e v e n t e d t h e l a n d from b e i n g used f o r r e s i d e n t i a l p u r p o s e s . Also, t h e r e was no restrictions i n d i c a t i o n from be will the lifted before raised by record the that these project is completed. The procedural drainage second issue question district of who has condemnation s h o u l d i t be p r e s e n t e d , appellants concerns the burden action and of proof in what There are no in a order I t i s e v i d e n t from t h e r e c o r d t h a t the appellants did not r a i s e t h i s issue a t the t r i a l level. the citations necessary, for court it is a x i o m a t i c t h a t u n l e s s a n i s s u e is r a i s e d on t h e t r i a l c o u r t l e v e l i t w i l l n o t be a d d r e s s e d by t h e a p p e l l a t e c o u r t u n l e s s t h e i s s u e r a i s e d is of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l import. 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 concur: e Chief J u s t i 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.
