STATE EX REL THELEN v MISSOULA

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 13192 I N THE SUPKEME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F OTN 1975 STATE ex r e l . , J O E R. THELEN and G. BARBARA THELEN, husband and w i f e , Relators, C I T Y OF MISSOUTA, through i t s C i t y C o u n c i l , ORIGINAL PROCEEDING: Counsel o f Record : For R e l a t o r s : J u l i o K. Morales a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana F r e d C. Root and V i c t o r F. Val-genti, M i s s o u l a , Montana V i c t o r F. V a l g e n t i a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana ttor .Amicus C u r i a e : Thomas Mahan a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted : Decided : October 2 9 , 1975 fJEC - 8 !$)", M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court . T h i s i s an o r i g i n a l proceeding brought by p r o p e r t y owners o f t h e c i t y o f Missoula praying t h a t an a l t e r n a t i v e w r i t of p r o h i b i t i o n i s s u e d i r e c t i n g t h e c i t y of Missoula t o r e s t r a i n from f u r t h e r i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e s a l e of t h e i r r e s i d e n c e and i n t h e e s t a b l i s h ment of a home f o r t h e developmentally d i s a b l e d i n a one-family r e s i d e n t i a l zone. R e l a t o r s a r e r e s i d e n t s of t h e c i t y o f Missoula and owners under a c o n t r a c t f o r deed of a r e s i d e n c e i n t h a t c i t y . i s l o c a t e d i n a zone c l a s s i f i e d by t h e c i t y a s R - I , residential district. The p r o p e r t y one-family The zoning c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , a s s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n 32.93 of t h e code of t h e c i t y of Missoula, a l l o w s u s e s of t h e premises a s follows: II Any u s e p e r m i t t e d i n RR-I". Such u s e s a r e s e t out i n s e c t i o n 32-9.8 of t h e code of t h e c i t y of Misscula a s : ( a ) One-family dwelling. (b) Parks and Playgrounds. The a p p l i c a b l e d e f i n i t i o n o f "family" i s c o n t a i n e d i n s e c t i o n 32-2 of t h e code of t h e c i t y of Missoula, and provides: 11 One o r more persons r e l a t e d by blood, a d o p t i o n , o r marriage, e x c l u s i v e of household s e r v a n t s , l i v i n g and cooking t o g e t h e r a s a s i n g l e housekeeping u n i t , o r n o t more than two persons though n o t r e l a t e d by blood, adoption o r marriage, l i v i n g and cooking t o g e t h e r a s a s i n g l e housekeeping u n i t s h a l l be deemed t o c o n s t i t u t e a family. I I R e l a t o r s d e s i r e t o s e l l t h e i r r e s i d e n c e and r e c e i v e d an o f f e r from t h e Missoula Developmentally Disabled Community Homes Council, a n o n p r o f i t o r g a n i z a t i o n , which i n t e n d s t o u s e t h e home f o r n o t more than 8 developmentally d i s a b l e d persons. Because t h e p r o p e r t y was l o c a t e d i n an R - I a r e a , t h e m a t t e r was taken b e f o r e t h e Missoula c i t y c o u n c i l t o s e e what a c t i o n i t would t a k e i n view of t h e f a c t t h a t t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e i n 1974 amended T i t l e 11, C i t i e s and Towns, Chapter 27, Building Regulations-Zoning Commission s e c t i o n s providing f o r community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s . 11-2702.1 and 11-2702.2, R.C.M. Sections 1947, now exempt homes f o r t h e developmentally d i s a b l e d from t h e p r o v i s i o n s of l o c a l zoning o r d i n ances. They provide: "11-2702.1. Community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y - - d e f i n e d . I Community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y ' means (1) a group, f o s t e r , o r o t h e r home s p e c i f i c a l l y provided a s a p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e f o r developmentally d i s a b l e d o r handicapped persons who do n o t r e q u i r e n u r s i n g c a r e , o r (2) a d i s t r i c t youth guidance home e s t a b l i s h e d pursuant t o s e c t i o n 10-1103, o r (3) a halfway house operated i n accordance w i t h r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e department of h e a l t h and environmental s c i e n c e s f o r t h e r e h a b i l i t a t i o n of a l c o h o l i c s o r drug dependent persons. 11 "11-2702.2. F o s t e r , boarding homes, community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s considered r e s i d e n t i a l . A f o s t e r o r boarding home operated under t h e p r o v i s i o n of s e c t i o n s 10-520 through 10-523, o r community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y s e r v i n g e i g h t (8) o r fewer persons, i s considered a r e s i d e n t i a l u s e of p r o p e r t y f o r purposes of zoning i f t h e home provides c a r e on a twenty-four (24) hour a day b a s i s . 11 The homes a r e a permitted u s e i n a l l r e s i d e n t i a l zones, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , r e s i d e n t i a l zones f o r s i n g l e - f a m i l y dwellings. Nothing i n t h i s paragraph s h a l l b e construed t o p r o h i b i t a c i t y o r county from r e q u i r i n g a c o n d i t i o n a l u s e permit i n o r d e r t o maintain a home pursuant t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of t h i s paragraph; provided such home i s l i c e n s e d by t h e department of h e a l t h and environmental s c i e n c e s and t h e department of s o c i a l and r e h a b i l i t a t i o n s e r v i c e s . Any s a f e t y o r s a n i t a r y r e g u l a t i o n of t h e department o r any o t h e r agency of t h e s t a t e o r p o l i t i c a l s u b d i v i s i o n t h e r e o f which i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o r e s i d e n t i a l occupancies i n g e n e r a l may n o t be a p p l i e d t o a community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t y s e r v i n g e i g h t (8) o r fewer persons. 11 Hearings were h e l d b e f o r e a s p e c i a l committee of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l and t h e c o u n c i l . Both proponents and opponents f o r a l l o w i n g t h e s a l e t o t h e n o n p r o f i t group were r e p r e s e n t e d . The f i n a l a c t i o n by t h e c i t y c o u n c i l d i r e c t e d t h e c i t y a t t o r n e y t o f i l e an a c t i o n t e s t i n g t h e amendments t o t h e s t a t e zoning law exempting homes f o r t h e developmentally d i s a b l e d . The consensus of t h e c i t y c o u n c i l was t h a t w h i l e i t d i d n o t oppose l a u d a b l e o b j e c t i v e s of t h e l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e purpose of t h e law s u i t was t o c h a l l e n g e t h e s t a t e ' s t a k i n g over c i t y zoning; zoning under t h e law t h e r e t o f o r e had been a l o c a l l y c o n t r o l l e d f u n c t i o n t h a t should be l e f t a t t h e l o c a l l e v e l . Thereafter the city of Missoula filed an action against relators entitled City of Missoula vs. Joe R. Thelen and Barbara G. Thelen, his wife, and Susan K. Browder, seeking an order to permanently enjoin and prohibit relators, their successors and assigns, from residence use of said premises by more than one family. In addition, the city filed a lis pendens notice preventing the consummation of the sale by relators, as well as preventing the future use of the home as a group home for the developmentally disabled. Three issues are pertinent in this proceeding: 1. Are relators entitled to have this Court assume original jurisdiction in this cause? 2. Are relators exempt from the city zoning power, classification and definition of a one-family residence district? 3. Are sections 11-2702.2, 71-2001, 71-2004, 71-2401 through 71-2414, and 80-2607 through 80-2610, R.C.M. 1947, relating to establishment, operation and appropriation for group home facilities constitutional within the purview of the United States Constitution and the 1972 Montana Constitution? For the purposes of this opinion we will combine the first two issues. Relators argue that recourse to the district court and subsequent appellate channels will not afford them adequate relief in that the final disposition of the issue presented by their petition affects the validity of the buy-sell agreement entered into between relators and the Missoula Developmentally Disabled Community Homes Council; that the city has repeatedly stated it intended to bring the issue to this Court to establish judicial precedent; and that reaching a supreme court decision through appellate channels will unreasonably delay the sale of the residence, the construction of a new residence planned by relators with proceeds of the sale,and the eventual use of the residence as a group residence within the statutes of this state. Respondent city argues that relators are attempting to short circuit the district court process and this Court is asked to act in a vacuum, alleging that relators who now claim urgency, have made no effort to bring the matter to trial in the district court and have thereby denied this Court a factual determination that could be properly disposed of by this Court on appeal. Respondent cites and relies on this court's holding in State ex rel. Kober & Kyriss v. District Court, 147 Mont. 116, 117, 410 P.2d 945, where this Court held: It In view of the provisions of the Montana Rules of Appellate Civil Procedure for the expeditious handling of appeals we are not inclined to issue writs of supervisory control as a method of short cut appeal, except under the most extenuating circumstances which we need not attempt to catalog. In this cause no such circumstances appear. I t Looking to the quoted language, we ask what, if any, are the extenuating circumstances here that would warrant intervention of this Court at this time? First, relators, with their buy-sell agreement, are unable to sell their property due to the law suit filed by respondent city and the lis pendens notice. Second, a zoning regulation of respondent city that has been neutralized by an act of the legislature. Third, the provisions of Article XII, Section 3 3 , () 1972 Montana Constitution which provides: "The legislature shall provide such economic assistance and social and rehabilitative services as may be necessary for those inhabitants who, by reason of age, infirmities, or misfortune may have need for the aid of society. II We find such extenuating circumstances warrant this Court's intervention in this cause. While we recognize respondent city's arguments as to the desirability of maintaining local government control of zoning regulations in its city, there is no question that the power of the legislature over the city in this matter is supreme. The legislature can give the cities of this state the power to regulate through zoning commissions, and the legislature can take it away. ~es~ondent's remedy lies not in this Court, but in the legislature. This Court in State v. Holmes, 100 Mont. 256, 274, 47 P.2d 624, said: 11* * * The powers granted to a municipal corporation are of two classes. he first including those which are legislative, public or governmental, and import sovereignty; the second are those which are proprietary or quasi private, conferred, for the private advantage of the inhabitants and of the City itself as a legal person. ' [Citing cases] * * * "As to the first class of powers of a city enumerated above, the power of the legislature is supreme except as limited by express constitutional prohibitions * *." This Court in State ex rel. Griffin v. City of Butte, 151 Mont. 546, 548, 445 P.2d 739, quoting from Leischner v. Knight, (City of ~illings), 135 Mont. 109, 112, 337 P.2d 359, said: "'1t is well-settled law in this state that cities have only those powers granted them by statute or which are necessarily implied as adjuncts to powers granted by statute. This court has repeatedly stated that "unless a power is vested in the municipality by express law [or by necessary implication therefrom], the presumption is against the exercise by the city of any such power. I I State ex rel. Great Falls Housing Authority V . City of Great Falls, 110 Mont. 318, 328, 100 P.2d 915, 921."' In the instant case, while respondent city may well have acted within the power granted it by the legislature in adopting its t Ione-family" criteria for zoning, that power was modified by later legislative language and respondent city should have revised its zoning regulations to meet the legislative requirements. That the legislature has power to modify or withdraw various powers given a municipality has long been recognized in Montana. This Court noted in Stephens v. City of Great Falls, 119 Mont. 368, "There is no principle of law better established than that a city has no power, except such as is conferred upon it by legislative grant, either directly or by necessary implication. [Citations] Resting as it does upon legislative grants the legislative branch of the government may, at t its pleasure, modify or withdraw the power so granted. It may, if it chooses, repeal any charter, or any law under which municipalities may be created, and destroy any munici a1 corporation at its will and pleasure. [Citation]. PI ~ o n t a n a ' sl e g i s l a t u r e having determined t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of t h e developmentally d i s a b l e d t o l i v e and develop w i t h i n our community s t r u c t u r e a s a family u n i t , r a t h e r than t h a t they be segregated i n i s o l a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s , i s paramount t o t h e zoning r e g u l a t i o n s of any c i t y i t becomes our duty t o r e c o g n i z e and implement such l e g i s l a t i v e a c t i o n . Respondent c i t y a r g u e s t h a t a r e c e n t opinion o f t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court, V i l l a g e of B e l l e T e r r e v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1, 94 S.Ct. 1536, 39 L ed 2d 797, 804, a f f i r m s t h e c o n s t i - t u t i o n a l i t y of an ordinance d e f i n i n g T'family" which i s f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes i d e n t i c a l t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s of s e c t i o n 32-2 o f t h e Missoula c i t y code d e f i n i n g "family". W e do n o t s o view i t . V i l l a g e of B e l l e T e r r e i s an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t f a c t u a l s i t u a t i o n and i s u n r e l a t e d t o s t a t e l e g i s l a t i o n t h a t i s focused on t h e c a r r y i n g o u t o f new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandates. There, t h e c i t y of B e l l e T e r r e had an ordinance s i m i l a r t o iss sou la's r e s t r i c t i n g land u s e t o one-family dwellings and p r o h i b i t i n g t h e occupancy of a dwelling by more than two u n r e l a t e d persons a s a "family". P l a i n t i f f s i n t h a t c a s e , t h e owners of a house, were charged w i t h v i o l a t i n g t h e ordinance due t o t h e f a c t t h a t t h r e e of s i x c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s r e n t e d t h e house. P l a i n t i f f s argued t h a t t h e ordinance v i o l a t e d e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n r i g h t s and r i g h t s of a s s o c i a t i o n , t r a v e l and privacy. The d i s t r i c t c o u r t upheld t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y of t h e ordinance, t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t r e v e r s e d , and t h e United S t a t e s Supreme Court i n an opinion authored by 14r. J u s t i c e Douglas, r e v e r s e d the c i r c u i t court. Elr. J u s t i c e Douglas gave a s t h e C o u r t ' s r e a s o n s f o r f i n d i n g t h e ordinance c o n s t i t u t i o n a l t h e f a c t t h a t t h e ordinance ( a ) was n o t aimed a t t r a n s i e n t s and t h u s d i d n o t v i o l a t e any r i g h t of i n t e r s t a t e t r a v e l , (b) involved no procedural d i s p a r i t y i n f l i c t e d on some b u t n o t on o t h e r s , (c) involved no fundamental c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t , such a s t h e r i g h t of a s s o c i a t i o n and p r i v a c y , and (d) w a s r e a s o n a b l e and b o r e a r a t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o a p e r m i s s i b l e s t a t e o b j e c t i v e , t h u s n o t v i o l a t i v e of e q u a l p r o t e c t i o n . Viewing our f a c t 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 , we f i n d t h e V i l l a g e o f B e l l e T e r r e c a s e i n a p p l i c a b l e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e c r i t e r i a of t h e opinion s e t f o r t h under (c) . Here, t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e adopted a new p o l i c y a s a p p l i e d t o t h e developmentally d i s a b l e d i n an e f f o r t t o implement a new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate, and i n s o doing i t was f u r t h e r i n g a permissible s t a t e objective. M r . J u s t i c e Douglas noted i n V i l l a g e of B e l l e T e r r e t h a t every l i n e drawn by a l e g i s l a t u r e l e a v e s something o u t t h a t might w e l l have been i n c l u d e d , b u t n o t e s , however, t h a t t h a t e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n i s a l e g i s l a t i v e , n o t a j u d i c i a l , f u n c t i o n . J u s t i c e Douglas then quotes t h e language o f M r . J u s t i c e Holmes i n h i s d i s s e n t i n g opinion i n L o u i s v i l l e Gas Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. When a l e g i s l a t i v e d i s t i n c t i o n i s determined, a s no one doubts t h a t i t may b e , between n i g h t and day, childhood and m a t u r i t y , o r any o t h e r extremes, a p o i n t has t o b e f i x e d o r a l i n e has t o b e drawn, o r g r a d u a l l y picked o u t by s u c c e s s i v e d e c i s i o n s , t o mark where t h e change t a k e s p l a c e . Looked a t by i t s e l f without r e g a r d t o t h e n e c e s s i t y behind i t t h e l i n e o r p o i n t seems a r b i t r a r y . It might a s w e l l o r n e a r l y a s w e l l b e a l i t t l e more t o one s i d e o r t h e o t h e r . But when i t i s seen t h a t a l i n e o r p o i n t t h e r e must b e , and t h a t t h e r e i s no mathem a t i c a l o r l o g i c a l way of f i x i n g i t p r e c i s e l y , t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e must b e accepted u n l e s s w e can s a y t h a t i t i s v e r y wide o f any r e a s o n a b l e mark."' 11 I Under t h e f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t c a s e , we uphold t h e l e g i s l a t i v e a c t s providing f o r community r e s i d e n t i a l f a c i l i t i e s f o r developmentally d i s a b l e d i n a l l r e s i d e n t i a l zones, i n c l u d i n g , b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o , r e s i d e n t i a l zones f o r one-family dwellings. Let the w r i t issue. Attorney f e e s a r e set i n t h e amount Justices.

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.