STATE EX REL SWART v STUCKY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No, 12798 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN 1975 STATE OF MONTANA, on r e l a t i o n o f CHARLES R. SWART, R e l a t o r and A p p e l l a n t , CARL STUCKY, County C l e r k and Recorder of t h e County of G a l l a t i n , S t a t e o f Montana, Respondent and Respondent, Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of 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 W. W , L e s s l e y , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For Appellant : Chadwick H. Smith a r g u e d , Helena, Montana F o r Respondent : Thomas A . Olson, County A t t o r n e y , Bozeman, Montana Donald C. White, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , Bozeman, Montana Submitted: A p r i l 25, 1975 ~ ~ c i d e3Of3 d: I I 1975 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e 0pi.nion of t h e Court. This i s an a p p e a l from t h e d e n i a l of a - c. !:-'i~damus seeking t o compel t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of Gal?.c.,:~,County t o f i l e an instrument submitted : . pursuant : : ,:e,;,--i J - . T ': surveyor (i:,-.-r 11-3872, : R ; zllant . f. Charles R. Swart 1947. s9re Charles R. Swart, a r e g i s t e r e d land .-ni;iter r e f e r r e d t o a s a p p e l l a n t ) , and C a r l Stucky, c l e r k and r e c o r d e r of G a l l a t i n County ( h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s respondent). The f a c t s can be summarized i n t h i s manner: Appellant was h i r e d by one P r i s c i l l a Schutz t o complete a survey of a t r a c t of land l o c a t e d i n G a l l a t i n County i n o r d e r t o complete a s a l e of t h e property. O December 1 3 , 1973, a p p e l l a n t submitted t h e survey n t o t h e respondent f o r f i l i n g pursuant t o s e c t i o n 11-3872, t h e p e r t i n e n t p o r t i o n o f which s t a t e s : "(1) Within one hundred e i g h t y (180) days of t h e completion o f a survey t h e r e g i s t e r e d land surveyor responsibJe f o r t h e survey, whether he i s p r i v a t e l y o r publid$employed, s h a l l prepare and f i l e f o r r e c o r d a certificate of survey i n t h e county i n which t h e survey was made i f t h e survey: 1I ( a ) provides m a t e r i a l evidence n o t appearing on any map f i l e d w i t h t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r o r contained i n t h e r e c o r d s of t h e United S t a t e s I' bureau of l a n d management * * *. Respondent c l e r k and r e c o r d e r r e f u s e d t o a c c e p t t h e survey a s submitted. He contended i t must f i r s t be submitted t o t h e c i t y county planning board f o r i n s p e c t i o n and approval and b e accompanied by a $20 reviewing f e e . O December 26, a p p e l l a n t resubmitted n t h e survey f o r f i l i n g w i t h t h e respondent without having i t approved by t h e c i t y county planning board and was a g a i n r e f u s e d . T h e r e a f t e r , a p p e l l a n t commenced t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t seeking a w r i t of mandamus t o compel respondent t o f i l e t h e survey. A h e a r i n g was h e l d and on A p r i l 15, 1974, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law. judgment i n favor of respondent was e n t e r e d on May 3 , 1974. A These a r e t h e i s s u e s a s p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l by b o t h parties : 1. Does respondent have a c l e a r l e g a l duty t o a c c e p t f o r f i l i n g an instrument which r e p r e s e n t s a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey on i t s f a c e without s u b j e c t i n g i t t o review and approval by t h e c i t y county plahrting board o r o t h e r county o f f i c e r s ? 2. Is t h e $20 reviewing f e e proper? 3. I s t h i s a p p e a l moot? The f i r s t i s s u e r e q u i r e s t h e review of p e r t i n e n t p r o v i s i o n s of t h e Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act, s e c t i o n 11-3859, R.C. M. 1947, e t seq. This Act was passed a s an a d j u n c t t o t h e p o l i c e power of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e t o promote t h e p s a f e t y , and g e n e r a l w e l f a r e ~ *-public ~ eh e a l t h , through r e g u l a t i o n of t h e s u b d i v i s i o n o f land i n Montana, and t o provide a method o f t r a n s f e r r i n g i n t e r e s t s i n r e a l p r o p e r t y by r e f e r e n c e t o a " p l a t " o r a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". S e c t i o n 11-3860. The county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r i s pro- h i b i t e d from r e c o r d i n g any instrument which p u r p o r t s t o t r a n s f e r t i t l e o r possession of a p a r c e l of land which i s r e q u i r e d t o be surveyed u n l e s s t h e r e q u i r e d " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" o r s u b d i v i s i o n " p l a t " has been f i l e d and t h e instrument of t r a n s f e r d e s c r i b e s t h e t r a c t by r e f e r e n c e t o t h e f i l e d " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" o r "plat". S e c t i o n 11-3862(3). The terms 11 c e r t i f i c a t e of survey", "plat", and "subdivision" have important t e c h n i c a l meanings t h a t a r e e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e d e f i n i t i o n s e c t i o n of t h e Act. s e c t i o n 11-3861, R.C.M.1947, P r i o r t o i t s amendment i n 1974, stated: "As used i n t h i s a c t , u n l e s s t h e c o n t e x t o r s u b j e c t m a t t e r c l e a r l y r e q u i r e s o t h e r w i s e , t h e following words o r phrases s h a l l have t h e following meanings: "(1) ' C e r t i f i c a t e of s u r v e y ' means a drawing o f a f i e l d survey prepared by a r e g i s t e r e d surveyor f o r t h e purpose of d i s c l o s i n g f a c t s p e r t a i n i n g t o boundary l o c a t i o n s . I "7 () Preliminary plat' means a neat and scaled drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the layout of streets, alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision which furnish a basis for review by a governing body; and the same shall be accompanied by any proposed covenants to run with the platted land and other elements of the proposed subdivision required to furnish a basis of review by the governing body. 'Final plat' means the final drawing of "8 () the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the county clerk and recorder and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this act and in regulations adopted pursuant thereto. '~ubdivision' means the division of land, "1) (2 or land so divided, into two (2) or more parcels, whether contiguous or not, any of which is ten (10) acres or less, exclusive of public roadways, in size, without regard to the method of description thereof, in order that the title or possession of the parcels or any interest therein may be sold, rented, leased, or otherwise conveyed either immediately or in the future, and shall include any resubdivision of land; and shall further include any condominium or areas providing multiple space for camping trailers, house trailers or mobile homes * * *If. The classification of the instrument as a subdivision "plat" or as a "certificate of survey" is important since the Act requires different treatment, depending upon the classification. If the instrument is classified as a "plat", it must be submitted to the city or town governing body for review and approval prior to filing. The governing body can approve or reject the plat within 60 days after it has been submitted and after a public hearing has been held. Section 11-3866, R.C.M. 1947. If the instrument is classified as a 11certificate of survey" it need not be subjected to the procedure summarized above. it must be filed pursuant to section 11-3872, R.C.M. 1947. However, This is the statute under which appellant attempted to file his survey. The instrument around which this lawsuit revolves is entitled': "A CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY OF A 44.293 ACRE PARCEL LOCATED IN THE EAST HALF OF SECTION 13, T2S, R4E, PMM, It p l a i n l y shows t h a t t h e s i n g l e p a r c e l surveyed has an a r e a composed of 44.293 a c r e s . I n t h e r i g h t h a n d c o m e r of t h e i n s t r u - ment a p p e l l a n t c e r t i f i e d t h a t he made t h e survey and i t i s c o r r e c t l y d e s c r i b e d by t h e document. In addition, appellant c e r t i f i e d that t h e survey was made i n compliance w i t h a p p l i c a b l e s t a t e s t a t u t e s . There i s no doubt t h a t a p p e l l a n t ' s document i s a It certificate of survey" and n o t a s u b d i v i s i o n " p l a t " a s d e f i n e d by t h e Act. I t s purpose i s t o e s t a b l i s h boundaries and t h e p r o p e r t y d e s c r i p t i o n f o r a deed on an e n t i r e s i n g l e p a r c e l which c o n t a i n s an a r e a g r e a t e r than t h e 10 a c r e requirement e s t a b l i s h e d by s e c t i o n 11-3861(12), p r i o r t o i t s amendment t o 20 a c r e s i n 1974. p r o f f e r e d document c o n t a i n s no " g r a p h i c a l Furthermore, t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of a s u b d i v i s i o n showing t h e d i v i s i o n of land i n t o l o t s , p a r c e l s , s t r e e t s , and a l l e y s , and o t h e r d i v i s i o n s and d e d i c a t i o n s 1 ' w i t h i n t h e meaning o f s e c t i o n 11-3861(6), which s e t s f o r t h t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a "plat". Accordingly, we hold t h a t respondent had a c l e a r l e g a l d u t y t o m p t a p p e l l a n t ' s document f o r f i l i n g s i n c e i t c o n t a i n e d no evidence whatsoever t h a t would b r i n g i t w i t h i n t h e d e f i n i t i o n o f a s u b d i v i s i o n , and t h e r e f o r e r e q u i r e d no review by t h e c i t y county planning board p r i o r t o f i l i n g . The judgment of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s r e v e r s e d t o a l l o w a p p e l l a n t a w r i t of mandamus t o compel respondent t o perform h i s c l e a r l e g a l duty i n f i l i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s " c e r t i f i c a t e I n h i s second i s s u e a p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t i t i s improper f o r t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r t o a s s e s s a $20 reviewing f e e . W agree. e The Montana Subdivision and P l a t t i n g Act c o n t a i n s no a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e assessment of a reviewing f e e , p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". ?he. s o l e s t a t u t e d e a l i n g w i t h f e e s i s s e c t i o n 11-3868, which provides: 1t The governing body may e s t a b l i s h r e a s o n a b l e f e e s t o b e W p a i dby-the s u b d i v i d e r t o d e f r a y t h e expense of reviewing s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . 11 certificate S e c t i o n 11-3868 i s c l e a r l y n o t a p p l i c a b l e where a of survey" i s submitted f o r f i l i n g . Under s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y , respondent i s r e q u i r e d t o charge a s p e c i f i c f i l i n g f e e f o r f i l i n g instruments. S e c t i o n 25-231, R.C.M. 1947. However, t h e r e i s no p r o v i s i o n t h a t would j u s t i f y t h e assessment of a I1 p r i o r t o t h e f i l i n g of a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". reviewing f e e " Neither t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r nor any o t h e r governmental a u t h o r i t y may charge an a d d i t i o n a l f e e n o t p r e s c r i b e d by s t a t u t e , o r o t h e r wise a u t h o r i z e d . 76 C.J.S. Records 520, provides: It The amount of t h e f e e f o r r e c o r d i n g i s g e n e r a l l y f i x e d by s t a t u t e , and only such f e e s a s a r e a u t h o r i z e d may b e charged. h he f e e f i x e d by s t a t u t e f o r f i l i n g a paper c o v e r s every a c t n e c e s s a r y t o be done i n o r d e r t o complete a l e g a l f i l i n g t h e r e o f , and no f e e may be charged f o r doing any t h i n g i n connection w i t h t h e paper not necessary t o a v a l i d f i l i n g . * * *". The t h i r d i s s u e on a p p e a l is---Is t h i s a p p e a l moot? Respondent argues t h i s a p p e a l i s moot because: 1. Section 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, was amended i n 1974 t o provide f o r t h e p r e r e c o r d i n g review of " c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey". 2. Since t h i s a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d a surveyor has been h i r e d t o r e p l a c e a p p e l l a n t and he has a l l e g e d l y f i l e d a " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey" on t h e same p r o p e r t y . To f u l l y understand r e s p o n d e n t ' s f i r s t c o n t e n t i o n , we t u r n t o s e c t i o n 11-3867, R.C.M. 1947, p r i o r t o i t s 1974 amendment: "(1) A l l f i n a l s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t s s h a l l b e reviewed f o r e r r o r s and omissions i n c a l c u l a t i o n o r d r a f t i n g When t h e survey by an examining land surveyor d a t a s h o ~ mon t h e p l a t meet t h e c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h by o r pursuant t o t h i s a c t , t h e examining surveyor s h a l l so c e r t i f y i n a p r i n t e d o r stamped c e r t i f i c a t e on t h e p l a t ; such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l b e signed by him." (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . * * *. I n 1974, a f t e r t h i s a c t i o n was i n i t i a t e d , s e c t i o n 11-3867 was amended t o provide: "(1) The governing body may r e q u i r e t h a t f i n a l subd i v i s i o n p l a t s and c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey be reviewed f o r e r r o r s and omissions i n c a l c u l a t i o n o r d r a f t i n g by an examining land surveyor b e f o r e r e c o r d i n g w i t h t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . When t h e survey d a t a shown on t h e p l a t o r c e r t i f i c a t e of survey meet t h e c o n d i t i o n s s e t f o r t h by o r pursuant t o t h i s a c t , t h e examining land surveyor s h a l l s o c e r t i f y i n a p r i n t e d o r stamped c e r t i f i c a t e on t h e p l a t o r c e r t i f i c a t e of survey; such c e r t i f i c a t e s h a l l be signed by him. (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) . * * *." W a g r e e w i t h respondent t h a t s e c t i o n 11-3867 a s amended, e provides f o r t h e p r e r e c o r d i n g review of c e r t i f i c a t e s of survey. However, we apply t h e law a s i t e x i s t e d when t h i s a c t i o n was brought. Consequently, we cannot c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t of t h e amended s t a t u t e . This a p p e a l i s n o t moot because of t h e 1974 amendment t o s e c t i o n 11-3867. Peterson v. Livestock Commission, 120 Mont. 140, 181 P.2d 152. Respondent a l s o a r g u e s t h i s a p p e a l i s moot because a 11 certi- f i c a t e of surveyt' h a s a l l e g e d l y been f i l e d by one Lewis Tout, a surveyor h i r e d t o r e p l a c e a p p e l l a n t a f t e r he was prevented from f i l i n g h i s " c e r t i f i c a t e of survey". Again, we d i s a g r e e t h a t t h i s a l l e g e d f a c t r e n d e r s t h i s m a t t e r moot. S e c t i o n 11-3872(1)(a), provides t h a t a r e g i s t e r e d surveyor i s compelled t o p r e p a r e and f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey i f t h e survey "(a) provides m a t e r i a l evidence n o t appearing on any map f i l e d w i t h t h e county c l e r k and r e c o r d e r o r contained i n t h e r e c o r d s of t h e United S t a t e s bureau of land management. I 1 Appellant a r g u e s t h e c e r t i f i c a t e o f survey f i l e d by Tout i s n o t i d e n t i c a l t o t h e survey he attempted t o f i l e and t h a t h i s survey 'I d i s c l o s e s evidence m a t e r i a l n o t appearing on any map f i l e d w i t h t h e c l o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r . " Assuming t h a t Tout d i d f i l e a c e r t i f i c a t e of survey, a f a c t which does n o t appear i n t h e r e c o r d b e f o r e u s , i t i s r e s p o n d e n t ' s duty t o demonstrate t h e two surveys a r e i n f a c t i d e n t i c a l , and t h a t i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r a p p e l l a n t t o f i l e h i s survey i n o r d e r t o make t h i s m a t t e r moot. This respondent has n o t done. T h e r e f o r e , respondent's second argu- ment i n r e g a r d t o mootness must f a i l . The judgment of the district court is reversed with directions to grant the writ of mandamus and award attorney fees to appellant in the amount of $1,000. We Concur: - - - L - * P - - " I - " - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chief Justice / Justices. 4

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.