STATE v HIGGINS

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12812 I N WE SUPREME C U T O THE STATE OF M N A A OR F OTN 1974 THE STATE O MONTANA, ACTING BY F AND THROUGH T E DEPARTMENT O HIGHWAYS H F O T E STATE O MONTANA, F H F P l a i n t i f f and Respondent, CHARLES C. HIGGINS and MARJORIE K. HIGGINS, husband and w i f e , Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Robert K e l l e r , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record : For Appellants : L e i f Erickson, S r . , argued, Helena, Montana For Respondent : Daniel J. S u l l i v a n and James R. Beck argued, Helena, Montana - Submitted: November 21, 1974 Decided : JAR 2 3 1975 Mr. J u s t i c e Frank I. Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t . C h a r l e s and t l a r j o r i e Higgins a p p e a l from a p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation e n t e r e d i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t of L i n c o l n County. The o r d e r d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e u s e t o which t h e Department of Highways s e e k s t o a p p l y t h e H i g g i n s ' p r o p e r t y i s a n e c e s s a r y p u b l i c u s e a u t h o r i z e d by law, and t h a t t h e t a k i n g i s r e q u i r e d by the public i n t e r e s t . The a c t i o n began w i t h a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by t h e Department of Highways on J u l y 26, 1972, s e e k i n g t o condemn a right-of-way t h r o u g h p r o p e r t y owned by t h e H i g g i n s i n t h e Yaak R i v e r V a l l e y of n o r t h w e s t e r n Montana. A t t a c h e d t o t h e c o m p l a i n t was a res- o l u t i o n of t h e S t a t e Highway Commission which a s s e r t e d : That p u b l i c i n t e r e s t and n e c e s s i t y r e q u i r e d t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of a s t a t e highway i n L i n c o l n County; t h a t a highway had been p l a n n e d and l o c a t e d i n a manner most c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y ; t h a t a p o r t i o n of p r o p e r t y owned by t h e H i g g i n s was n e c e s s a r y f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h a t highway; and t h a t t h e Department had been u n a b l e t o n e g o t i a t e a n a g r e e ment f o r p u r c h a s e of t h e p r o p e r t y . The owners, C h a r l e s and M a r j o r i e H i g g i n s , f i l e d an answer d e n y i n g t h e m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s of t h e c o m p l a i n t and c l a i m i n g t h a t $ 5 0 , 0 0 0 would be a r e a s o n a b l e and j u s t compensation f o r t h e t a k i n g . A h e a r i n g was h e l d on October 11, 1973, t o d e t e r m i n e t h e " n e c e s s i t y " o f t h e proposed condemnation. The Department i n - t r o d u c e d t h e r e s o l u t i o n o f t h e S t a t e Highway Commission and t h e n r e s t e d , r e l y i n g on t h e p r e s u m p t i o n s a r i s i n g from t h e r e s o l u t i o n by v i r t u e o f t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 32-3904, R.C.M. 1947. The p r o p e r t y owners c a l l e d H i g g i n s a s t h e i r o n l y w i t n e s s . H e r e l a t e d h i s p r e s e n t and a n t i c i p a t e d u s e s of t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e a d v e r s e impact which t h e proposed condemnation and c o n s t r u c t i o n would have on t h o s e u s e s . T e s t i f y i n g a s one e x p e r i e n c e d i n r e a l e s t a t e t r a n s a c t i o n s but u n q u a l i f i e d a s an engineer, he e x p r e s s e d a b e l i e f t h a t t h e proposed highway c o u l d be c o n s t r u c t e d more e c o n o m i c a l l y on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e v a l l e y , a c r o s s t h e r i v e r from h i s p r o p e r t y . On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n h e a d m i t t e d t h a t c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e highway on t h e o t h e r s i d e of t h e r i v e r would n e c e s s i t a t e t h e u s e of a d d i t i o n a l b r i d g e s . H e expressed a personal opinion t h a t t h e a d d i t i o n a l c o s t of c o n s t r u c t i n g t h e s e b r i d g e s might be o f f s e t by t h e r e d u c t i o n i n c u t t i n g and f i l l i n g a r i s i n g from t h e e a s t s i d e ' s less rugged t e r r a i n . Even i f t h e a l t e r n a t e r o u t e wa s was most c o s t l y , h e f e l t t h e added e x p e n s e / w a r r a n t e d by t h e l e s s e n e d demand f o r p r i v a t e l a n d . Most of t h e l a n d on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r i s owned by t h e f e d e r a l government, w h i l e much of t h e l a n d on t h e w e s t s i d e o f t h e v a l l e y i s p r i v a t e l y owned. On c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , he p r o f e s s e d no knowledge of whether o r n o t t h e f e d e r a l government would a l l o w c o n s t r u c t i o n o f t h i s highway on i t s l a n d . When t h e p r o p e r t y owners r e s t e d t h e Department reopened i t s c a s e by c a l l i n g John D i l l o n , d i s t r i c t r a n g e r f o r t h e Yaak Ranger D i s t r i c t of t h e Kootenai N a t i o n a l F o r e s t . He t e s t i f i e d t h a t he was opposed t o c o n s t r u c t i o n of a highway o n f e d e r a l f o r e s t l a n d s i n t h e Yaak R i v e r V a l l e y . He had responded t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s i n q u i r i e s by opposing a r o u t e on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r f o r t h r e e reasons: F i r s t , he was opposed t o d e d i c a t i o n of a d d i t i o n a l f o r e s t l a n d f o r a highway when one a l r e a d y e x i s t e d on t h e w e s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r ; s e c o n d , t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n would have a n a d v e r s e impact on t h e Yaak R i v e r " w a t e r i n f l u e n c e zone"; and f i n a l l y , a highway on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r would i n t e r f e r e w i t h moose and mule d e e r m i g r a t i o n p a t t e r n s . D i l l o n a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t h i s o p i n i o n had been c o n c u r r e d i n by h i s immediate s u p e r v i s o r , b u t t h a t h e d i d n o t know whether t h e Department had pursued t h e i n q u i r y t o h i g h e r l e v e l s w i t h i n t h e f e d e r a l bureaucracy. Under c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n he a l s o ad- m i t t e d t h a t t h e p r i m a r y u s e r s of t h e p r e s e n t highway were l o g g e r s , h u n t e r s , and f i s h e r m e n and t h a t t h e proposed highway would be used s i m i l a r l y . Following t h e h e a r i n g t h e p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemn a t i o n was i s s u e d and t h i s a p p e a l w a s s u b s e q u e n t l y p e r f e c t e d . A p p e l l a n t s h e r e a r g u e t h a t a highway r o u t i n g o v e r p u b l i c l a n d s h o u l d be p r e f e r r e d t o a l o c a t i o n on p r i v a t e l a n d . They c o n t e n d t h a t " n e c e s s i t y " h a s n o t been d e m o n s t r a t e d u n t i l it i s shown t h a t t h e f e d e r a l l a n d i s u n a v a i l a b l e f o r c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h i s highway. I t i s c l a i m e d t h a t t h e u n a v a i l a b i l i t y of f o r e s t l a n d s h e r e c o u l d n o t be e s t a b l i s h e d w i t h o u t a showing t h a t t h e r e q u e s t s were pursued t o t h e h i g h e r l e v e l s of t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e s t Service. The Department, on t h e o t h e r hand, a r g u e s t h a t t h e o n l y q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d f o r o u r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i s whether o r n o t t h e Department a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y o r abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n i n r o u t i n g t h e proposed highway on t h e w e s t s i d e of t h e r i v e r . The D e p a r t - ment a s s e r t s t h a t a p p e l l a n t s f a i l e d t o make such a showing by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g proof and t h e r e f o r e t h e y c a n n o t p r e v a i l upon a p p e a l . The r e q u i r e m e n t s which must be s a t i s f i e d b e f o r e p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y c a n be condemned i n Montana a r e d e t e r m i n e d by s t a t u t e . The u s e f o r which t h e p r o p e r t y i s t o be t a k e n must be a u t h o r i z e d by law and t h e t a k i n g must be n e c e s s a r y t o t h a t u s e . 93-9905, R.C.M. 1947. B e f o r e a right-of-way Section c a n be condemned, t h e l o c a t i o n of t h e highway must be made i n a manner most comp a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y . S e c t i o n 93-9906, R.C.M. 1947. The r e s o l u t i o n of t h e Highway Commission c r e a t e s a d i s p u t a b l e presumption t h a t t h e s e s t a t u t o r y requirements a r e s a t i s f i e d . S e c t i o n 32-3904, R.C.M. 1947. A p p e l l a n t s ' arguments i n v o l v e two b a s i c p r o p o s i t i o n s : (1) Routing o v e r p u b l i c l a n d s should be p r e f e r r e d t o r o u t e s r e q u i r i n g t a k i n g of p r i v a t e l a n d , and ( 2 ) t h e r e c o r d h e r e d o e s n o t make a s u f f i c i e n t showing t h a t t h e S t a t e a d e q u a t e l y pursued t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of r o u t i n g a c r o s s n a t i o n a l f o r e s t l a n d s . The f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e f i r s t p r o p o s i t i o n l i e s i n t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t of s e c t i o n 93-9906, R.C.M. 1947. A l l other fac- t o r s b e i n g e q u a l , i t seems a p p a r e n t t h a t a r o u t i n g o v e r p u b l i c l a n d s would be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and would s u r e l y i n v o l v e t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y . This proposition r e c e i v e d a t l e a s t t a c i t r e c o g n i t i o n i n S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . D a n i e l s e n , 146 Mont. 539, 4 0 9 P.2d 443. There t h r e e p o t e n t i a l r o u t e s were a v a i l a b l e f o r a proposed highway, one f o l l o w i n g a n e x i s t i n g right-of-way. Recognizing t h a t t h e e x i s t i n g l o c a t i o n would r e q u i r e t h e l e a s t c o n f i s c a t i o n o f p r i v a t e l a n d , w e h e l d t h a t a v a i l a b i l i t y of p u b l i c l a n d was one f a c t o r which must be considered i n determining l o c a t i o n . A demonstration t h a t t h e Highway Commission had f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r t h i s f a c t o r was t h e r e s u f f i c i e n t t o r e b u t t h e presumption g e n e r a l l y a c c o r d e d t h e Commission's r e s o l u t i o n t o condemn. N o n e t h e l e s s , p r i v a t e i n j u r y i s b u t o n e of t h e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s p r e s e n t i n a condemnation. The p r e s e n t r e c o r d c o n t a i n s f a c t s r e l e v a n t t o b o t h p u b l i c good and p r i v a t e i n j u r y . While t h e r o u t e a c r o s s f o r e s t l a n d s would o c c a s i o n t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y , i t would a l s o be d e t r i m e n t a l t o t h e p u b l i c good, The r o u t e on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e v a l l e y would n e c e s s i t a t e t h e cons t r u c t i o n of more b r i d g e s , an economic c o n s i d e r a t i o n a d v e r s e t o t h e p u b l i c good. Avoidance of i n c r e a s e d c o s t s a s a n e l e m e n t of t h e p u b l i c good h a s been r e c o g n i z e d by t h i s C o u r t i n S t a t e e x r e l . L i v i n g s t o n v . D i s t r i c t C o u r t , 90 Mont. 1 9 1 , 300 P. 916. S i m i l a r l y , damage t o watershed and w i l d l i f e a r e f a c t o r s b e a r i n g on t h e p u b l i c good here. and a r e worthy of c o n s i d e r a t i o n Given t h e s e economic and e c o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s , we c a n n o t f i n d c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g proof t h a t t h e Highway Commission abused i t s d i s c r e t i o n o r a c t e d a r b i t r a r i l y . Highway Comm'n v . Crossen-Nissen Co., A s w e noted i n S t a t e 145 Mont. 251, 257, 4 0 0 " * * * The e v i d e n c e of h a r d s h i p and t h e f a c t t h a t a n o t h e r f e a s i b l e r o u t e , o v e r which t h i s highway c o u l d be b u i l t , e x i s t e d d i d n o t s u p p l y t h e c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g proof r e q u i r e d by t h i s c o u r t b e f o r e i t w i l l s u b s t i t u t e i t s judgment f o r t h e judgment of a n agency e s p e c i a l l y q u a l i f i e d f o r making s u c h d e c i s i o n s . There i s a p u b l i c I t h a s t o be b u i l t o v e r need f o r t h i s highway. some r o u t e . The Highway Commission i s a u t h o r i z e d and q u a l i f i e d t o select t h e r o u t e , and i t s dec i s i o n i n s o d o i n g a p p e a r s t o be c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e injury. " While t h e f a c t u a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s b e f o r e u s i n Crossen-Idissen a r e n o t t h e same a s t h o s e p r e s e n t i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , t h e c o n t r o l l i n g law remains t h e same. The r e s o l u t i o n of t h e Highway Commission c r e a t e s a d i s p u t a b l e presumption t h a t t h e s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r condemn a t i o n have been s a t i s f i e d . S e c t i o n 32-3904, presumption may be c o n t r o v e r t e d by o t h e r e v i d e n c e . 93-1301-7, R.C.M. 1947. R.C.M. The Section 1947. The e v i d e n t i a r y e f f e c t of a d i s p u t a b l e presumption a r i s i n g from t h e Highway Commission's r e s o l u t i o n was c l e a r l y d e f i n e d i n S t a t e Highway Comm'n v . Yost Farm Co., 1 4 2 Mont. 239, 2 4 8 , 384 P.2d 277, where w e quoted t h e f o l l o w i n g r u l e w i t h approval : "'A d i s p u t a b l e presumption, says t h e s t a t u t e , It is may be c o n t r o v e r t e d by o t h e r e v i d e n c e . s u c c e s s f u l l y c o n t r o v e r t e d when proof t o t h e c o n t r a r y s a t i s f a c t o r i l y overcomes i t . By proof which s a t i s f a c t o r i l y overcomes i t , i s meant t h a t which s u s t a i n s t h e a f f i r m a t i v e of t h e i s s u e - - a preponderance of t h e e v i d e n c e . I n t h i s j u r i s d i c t i o n c i v i l c a s e s a r e t o be d e c i d e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e g r e a t e r w e i g h t of t h e e v i d e n c e , and a b a r e preponderance i n f a v o r of t h e p a r t y holding t h e a f f i r m a t i v e of t h e i s s u e i s s u f f i c i e n t t o w a r r a n t , and s h o u l d r e s u l t i n , a decision i n h i s favor. [ C i t i n g c a s e s . ] Theref o r e , when t h e e v i d e n c e p r e p o n d e r a t e s a g a i n s t a d i s p u t a b l e p r e s u m p t i o n , i t " f a d e s away i n t h e f a c e of c o n t r a r y f a c t s . " ' " The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , t h e t r i e r o f f a c t h e r e , had b e f o r e it t h e s t a t u t o r y presumption b u t t r e s s e d by t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e d i s t r i c t r a n g e r i n whose j u r i s d i c t i o n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n was proposed. The s o l e c o n t r o v e r t i n g e v i d e n c e was t h e t e s t i m o n y of t h e d e f e n d a n t landowner. The e v i d e n c e was weighed by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t and was found t o e s t a b l i s h , among o t h e r t h i n g s , * * * t h a t s a i d highway r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e c o m p l a i n t h a s been l o c a t e d a l o n g a r o u t e which w i l l be most c o m p a t i b l e w i t h t h e g r e a t e s t p u b l i c good and t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y . " Our r e v i e w of t h e r e c o r d d i s c l o s e s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e Moreover, t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o support t h a t finding. s u p p o r t i n g t h e c h o i c e of t h e proposed r o u t e , even though a l o c a t i o n on t h e f e d e r a l l a n d s might u l t i m a t e l y have been p e r m i t t e d by t h e f e d e r a l government. The f a i l u r e of t h e Highway Department t o pursue t h e i r i n q u i r i e s concerning t h e f o r e s t r o u t e t o t h e h i g h e s t l e v e l s of t h e f e d e r a l government l a c k s i m p o r t a n c e under these facts. However, under a p p r o p r i a t e f a c t s , t h e f a i l u r e of t h e Highway Department t o e x h a u s t i v e l y p u r s u e t h e s e c u r i n g of f e d e r a l o r o t h e r p u b l i c l a n d s might c o n s t i t u t e a r b i t r a r i n e s s o r a b u s e of d i s c r e t i o n s i m i l a r t o t h a t found i n D a n i e l s e n . The p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation i s a f f i r m e d . Justice W Concur: e / Justice > ' 3 4 Mr. Justice Wesley Castles dissenting: I dissent. I would require the condemnor to prove necessity for the taking of private land when publicly owned land is available. The condemnor should be required, under these conditions, to go further in pursuing alternate routing on public lands. I do not disagree with the general'statements of law applicable here, but merely say the state did not carry its burden of proof to prove necessity. Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison: I join with Mr. Justice Wesley Castles in what he has said in his dissent.

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.