WHEELER v ARMSTRONG

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12516 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 JAMES WHEELER and EDITH WHEELER, P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , - -vs RALPH ARMSTRONG, GEORGE GILLETTE e t a l . , Respondents and D e f e n d a n t s , - -vs DEAN H. TRAVIS e t a l . , Intervenors Appeal from: . D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable J a c k Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellants : B e n n e t t and B e n n e t t , Bozeman, Montana 1 Lyman B e n n e t t 1 1 a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana F o r Respondents : Olson and G a i , Bozeman, Montana Thomas A. Olson a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana For Intervenors: Brown and G i l b e r t , Bozeman, Montana Gene I. Brown a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: March 6 , 1975 Decided: AFR Filed: -3 41975 - 3 19% PER CURIAM: T h i s i s t h e c u l m i n a t i o n o f a s e r i e s of r e l a t e d c a s e s . The f a c t s a r e d e t a i l e d i n Wheeler v . Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. W promulgated a unanimous o p i n i o n on November 1 9 , e 1974; s u b s e q u e n t l y g r a n t e d a r e h e a r i n g , and r e h e a r d t h e e n t i r e m a t t e r on March 6 , 1975. T h i s o p i n i o n r e p l a c e s t h a t i s s u e d on November 1 9 , 1974 a s r e p o r t e d i n 3 1 St.Rep. 907. E s s e n t i a l l y what h a s o c c u r r e d i s t h i s : A p p e l l a n t s James and E d i t h Wheeler ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e Wheelers) own a p p r o x i m a t e l y e i g h t a c r e s of l a n d w e s t of t h e Bozeman c i t y l i m i t s . A s e a r l y a s 1966 some r e s i d e n t s of the t h e a r e a a t t e m p t e d t o h a v e / a r e a zoned, b u t a s of t h e s p r i n g o f 1970 when t h e Wheelers began c o n s t r u c t i n g a m o b i l e home p a r k on t h e i r p r o p e r t y , t h e r e were no zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s . A f t e r some l e g a l p r o d d i n g by t h e s e same r e s i d e n t s , t h e r e s p o n d e n t zoning board (Zoning Board of P l a n n i n g and Zoning D i s t r i c t No. One, G a l l a t i n County, Montana, h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e zoning b o a r d ) on J u n e 1 2 , 1970, a d o p t e d a n o r d i n a n c e making t h e e x i s t e n c e of a mobile home p a r k i n t h i s a r e a a c o n d i t i o n a l u s e . When t h i s o r d i n a n c e was a d o p t e d t h e Wheelers a l r e a d y had t h r e e m o b i l e home u n i t s on t h e p r o p e r t y and had o b t a i n e d p e r m i s s i o n from t h e c o u n t y f o r i n s t a l l a t i c n of s e p t i c t a n k s f o r t h r e e more. During t h e summer of 1970, t h e Wheelers c o n t i n u e d t o move m o b i l e homes o n t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y even though no a p p l i c a t i o n was made f o r a c o n d i t i o n a l u s e p e r m i t as r e q u i r e d by t h e o r d i n a n c e . On March 1 8 , 1971, t h e zoning board o b t a i n e d a n i n j u n c t i o n a g a i n s t t h e Wheelers p r o h i b i t i n g them from f u r t h e r v i o l a t i n g t h e zoning o r d i n a n c e and o r d e r i n g them t o remove a l l b u t s i x of t h e m o b i l e home u n i t s . established.) (A nonconforming u s e f o r t h e s e s i x u n i t s had been The Wheelers r e f u s e d t o comply w i t h t h i s o r d e r and u l t i m a t e l y were c i t e d f o r contempt. On J u l y 1, 1971, t h e Wheelers p e t i t i o n e d t h e zoning board f o r a v a r i a n c e w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e b a l a n c e o f t h e p r o p e r t y . S i n c e t h e i r p e t i t i o n s e t f o r t h s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same matters which had been l i t i g a t e d a t p r i o r h e a r i n g s , t h e zoning board denied it. Appeal was t a k e n t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , b u t was d i s - missed on t h e t h e o r y of res j u d i c a t a . The d i s m i s s a l , i n t u r n , was a p p e a l e d t o t h i s C o u r t and r e s u l t e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n of Wheeler v . Armstrong, 159 Mont. 392, 498 P.2d 300. W e held t h e r e t h a t t h e Wheelers were a t l e a s t e n t i t l e d t o a h e a r i n g on t h e i r p e t i t i o n b e c a u s e a nonconforming u s e and v a r i a n c e were n o t t h e same and t h e r e f o r e t h e p r i o r l i t i g a t i o n was n o t r e s j u d i c a t a . The h e a r i n g ( t h e s u b j e c t of t h i s a p p e a l ) was h e l d on J a n u a r y 3 , 1973. e t al., A t t h i s h e a r i n g t h e i n t e r v e n o r s Dean T r a v i s , were made p a r t i e s t o t h e a c t i o n . Wheelers produced s e v - e r a l n e i g h b o r s who t e s t i f i e d t h e y had no o b j e c t i o n s t o t h e e x t e n s i o n of t h e mobile home p a r k . Intervenors presented an o f f s e t t - i n g number of w i t n e s s e s who t e s t i f i e d t o t h e c o n t r a r y . The zoning board c a l l e d Richard M a y f i e l d , c i t y - c o u n t y p l a n n i n g d i r e c t o r i n Bozeman, who t e s t i f i e d a b o u t t h e l a n d u s e p l a n f o r t h e a r e a . Among o t h e r t h i n g s , Mayfield s a i d s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d s e v e r e l i m i t a t i o n s i n t h e area with respect t o building foundations, s e p t i c w a s t e d i s p o s a l and hydrology. From t h e judgment e n t e r e d f o r r e - s p o n d e n t board and i n t e r v e n o r s denying t h e v a r i a n c e , t h e Wheelers appealed. The i s s u e i s whether t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t were f a i r l y s u p p o r t e d by t h e e v i d e n c e . A p p l i c a t i o n s f o r v a r i a n c e s t o zoning o r d i n a n c e s a r e governed by t h e d e c i s i o n s i n Freeman v . Board of Adjustment, 97 Mont. 342, 34 P.2d 534, and Lambros v . M i s s o u l a , 153 Mont. 2 0 , 26, 452 P.2d 393. Lambros s e t s o u t t h r e e c r i t e r i a a p e t i t i o n f o r v a r i a n c e must meet: 1) The v a r i a n c e must n o t be c o n t r a r y t o p u b l i c i n t e r e s t ; 2) A l i t e r a l enforcement of t h e zoning o r d i n a n c e must r e s u l t i n u n n e c e s s a r y h a r d s h i p , owing t o c o n d i t i o n s u n i q u e t o t h e p r o p e r t y ; and 3) The s p i r i t o f t h e o r d i n a n c e must be o b s e r v e d , and s u b s t a n t i a l j u s t i c e done. Applying t h e s e c r i t e r i a t o t h e e v i d e n c e b e f o r e i t , t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t s p e c i f i c a l l y found a g a i n s t t h e Wheelers i n each instance. I n r e v i e w i n g t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment, we n o t e t h e r u l e s t a t e d i n F r e e m a n , t h a t it i s o n l y n e c e s s a r y t o a s c e r t a i n whether t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l and competent e v i d e n c e t o s u s t a i n t h e a c t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . The Wheelers c o n t e n d t h a t o u r d e c i s i o n i n Wheeler p r e c l u d e d t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i n t h i s p r o c e e d i n g from t a k i n g j u d i c i a l n o t i c e of t h e o t h e r r e l a t e d c a s e s between t h e same p a r t i e s . How- e v e r , t h e r e c o r d shows t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t t o o k j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f t h e s e o t h e r c a s e s o n l y t o t h e e x t e n t t h e i r f a c t s were r e l e v a n t t o t h e i n s t a n t case. The c o u r t s t a t e d s p e c i f i c a l l y t h e s e c a s e s were n o t res j u d i c a t a a s t o t h e new i s s u e s . T h i s r u l i n g was t h e r e f o r e p r o p e r and n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o u r h o l d i n g i n Wheeler. A t t h e h e a r i n g c o u n s e l f o r Wheelers i n v i t e d Judge Shanstrom t o view t h e a r e a . Judge Shanstrom i n d i c a t e d he would do s o and found a s f a c t s t h a t : "The Wheelers planned t h e i r f o r t y - s e v e n u n i t t r a i l e r c o u r t w i t h knowledge t h a t t h e a r e a r e s i d e n t s had p r e v i o u s l y s u b m i t t e d a zoning p e t i t i o n t o t h e County Commissioners. "The Wheelers expended monies on t h e p r o j e c t w i t h knowledge t h a t t h e l o c a l D i s t r i c t C o u r t had t a k e n jurisdiction i n the matter. "The Wheelers expended money and c o n t i n u e d t o move t r a i l e r s o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y a f t e r t h e Zoning Comm i s s i o n had f i l e d a n o r d i n a n c e d e s c r i b i n g t h e C o u r t a s a 'conditional use1, only a f t e r p e t i t i o n . "The Wheelers expended money, and moved a d d i t i o n a l t r a i l e r s o n t o t h e i r l a n d a f t e r Judge S t e w a r t found t h e y had a r i g h t t o o n l y s i x t r a i l e r s . "The Wheelers r e f u s e d t o remove t h e e x c e s s i v e number o f t r a i l e r s u n t i l t h e y had been f i n e d and found i n contempt of C o u r t . "Any i n j u r y s u f f e r e d by Wheelers h a s been c a u s e d by t h e i r own n e g l i g e n c e and d e l i k r a t e v i o l a t i o n of C o u r t o r d e r s , n o t e d above. "The s u r r o u n d i n g p r o p e r t y i n t h e a r e a i n q u e s t i o n i s r u r a l r e s i d e n t i a l homes. N o t r a i l e r c o u r t s a r e l o c a t e d i n t h e immediate v i c i n i t y of t h e Wheeler property. "The h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n o f f i c e r s have e x p r e s s e d c o n c e r n o v e r t h e immediate i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e e n t i r e t r a i l e r c o u r t . I' Judge Shanstrom t h e n concluded: "The h a r d s h i p s u f f e r e d by Wheelers i s a r e s u l t of t h e i r own n e g l i g e n c e and d e l i b e r a t e v i o l a t i o n s of t h i s C o u r t ' s O r d e r s and n o t t h e r e s u l t of t h e unique c o n d i t i o n of t h e i r p r o p e r t y . "The c h a r a c t e r of t h e neighborhood would be m a t e r i a l l y a f f e c t e d and changed by t h e g r a n t i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n f o r variance. "The neighborhood h a s e x p e r i e n c e d s a n i t a t i o n problems i n t h e p a s t and t h e i m p o s i t i o n of t h e t r a i l e r c o u r t proposed, i s n o t j u s t i f i e d . "The g r a n t i n g of a v a r i a n c e t o t h e Wheelers i s cont r a r y t o the public interest." C l e a r l y , under t h e t h r e e c r i t e r i a h e r e t o f o r e s e t f o r t h , t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a r e s u f f i c i e n t t o show t h a t t h e v a r i a n c e was n o t p r o p e r . Wheelers d i d show t h a t t h e y c o u l d comply w i t h h e a l t h and s a n i t a t i o n r e g u l a t i o n s , b u t d i d n o t show where t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t would be s e r v e d by a v a r i a n c e . A l s o , from t h e f i n d i n g s h e r e t o - f o r e s e t f o r t h , it i s s e e n t h a t any h a r d s h i p w a s l a r g e l y s e l f imposed, i n t h e s e n s e t h a t Wheelers were g o i n g t o go ahead i n s p i t e of a n y t h i n g . W have reviewed t h e e n t i r e r e c o r d and f i n d s u b s t a n t i a l e c r e d i b l e e v i d e n c e t o uphold t h e f i n d i n g s of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t . We affirm the judgment. Honorable Alfred B. Coate, District Judge, sat in place of Mr. Chief Justice James T. Harrison.

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.