BAILEY v RAVALLI COUNTY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 81-542 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 BRUCE J. BAILEY and HELEN L. BAILEY et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, VS. RAVALLI COUNTY, et al., Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, In and for the County of Ravalli Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellant: Robert B. Brown argued, County Attorney, Hamilton, Montana For Respondents: Baldassin, Connell & Beers, Missoula, Montana Thomas J. Beers argued, Missoula, Montana For Amicus Curiae: William Bogqs argued, Missoula, Montana Submitted: Decided: Filed: NSV 3 - 198% May 20, 1982 PToveinber 3, 1982 Mr. Justice Court. John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered the Opinion T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from a n a c t i o n f o r q u i e t t i t l e of the to one- h a l f o f t h e roadway a d j o i n i n g l o t s owned by p l a i n t i f f s s e p a r a t e l y 3 , a p l a t t e d orchard tract i n S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s No. A f t e r t r i a l on J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t C o u n t y , Montana. of Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t found the in Ravalli t h e land i n q u e s t i o n had b e e n a b a n d o n e d and c l o s e d by t h e R a v a l l i County C o m m i s s i o n e r s a result, as 1944 and, reverted to the abutting owners, in each r e c e i v i n g t o t h e c e n t e r of t h e f o r m e r l y p l a t t e d road. From t h a t judgment d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l . The p l a t o f S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s N o . on October 16, 1909. The 3 was f i l e d and r e c o r d e d s t a t u t o r y c e r t i f i c a t e of dedication stated in part: "The l a n d i n c l u d e d i n a l l s t r e e t s , a v e n u e s , a l l e y s , p a r k s and p u b l i c s q u a r e shown on s a i d p l a t are h e r e b y g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e use of t h e p u b l i c f o r e v e r ." On A p r i l 5 , twelve 1944, signatures was a petition filed f o r county road with the Ravalli closure with County Clerk and Recorder. The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e c l o s u r e of e i g h t r o a d s , s i x of were which division. portions One o f of roads those s i x , 1 and 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of in and J o e l P . petitioners, sub- L o t 3 0 , B l o c k 1 0 , and L o t 3 , H. H. Block Benson, t h e county s u r - a c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r and o n e of the were a p p o i n t e d as v i e w e r s by t h e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n on A p r i l 5 1 1944. roads. Antrim, Orchards t h e p l a t t e d road between Blocks 1 0 11, is t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s a c t i o n . veyor, Sunnyside The v i e w e r s q r e p o r t recommended closing the T h i s r e p o r t w a s f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r May 4 , 1 9 4 4 , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n a c c e p t e d and o r d e r e d f i l e d by t h e commissioners May recorded proceeding the 3, 1944. on The May 3, Commissioners ' 1944, with Minute the statement: " ' W e f i n d t h e r o a d s a r e n o t b e i n g u s e d as p u b l i c r o a d s and a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be used as s u c h , and c l o s i n g o f s a i d r o a d s would n o t inconvenience the public in any degree. T h e r e f o r e w e recommend t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d Book following r o a d s be c l o s e d as p e t i t i o n e d f o r . Upon m o t i o n made and s e c o n d e d r e p o r t was a c c e p t e d and o r d e r e d f i l e d . " A f t e r 1944, n e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f s nor t h e i r predecessors i n i n t e r e s t paid any taxes on a n y p o r t i o n o f the roadway, and no p o r t i o n o f t h e roadway was f e n c e d i n t o t h e l a n d s now b e l o n g i n g to r e s p o n d e n t s u n t i l t h e s p r i n g or summer of 1 9 8 0 . On October Commissioners 24, 1980, directed the removal Board of of Ravalli obstructions in the 1 b e t w e e n B l o c k s 1 0 and 1 o f S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s No. 3 . B a i l e y had p l a c e d a f e n c e a l o n g t h e c e n t e r of t h e county commissioner's d i r e c t i v e County roadway Respondent t h e r o a d p r i o r to . The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s Court: 1. W h e t h e r a s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of lands designated for s t r e e t s and a l l e y s i n a 1909 t o w n s h i p c r e a t e s a p u b l i c r o a d w a y ? 2. Whether the platted road in Sunnyside Orchards No. 3 b e t w e e n B l o c k s 1 0 and 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of L o t 3 0 , B l o c k 1 0 , 1 and Lot B l o c k 11, was 3, closed and abandoned by the Ravalli C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s on May 3 , 1 9 4 4 ? 3. I f s o , w h e t h e r t h e l a n d w h i c h made up t h a t r o a d r e v e r t e d t o t h e a b u t t i n g o w n e r s e a c h r e c e i v i n g t o t h e c e n t e r l i n e of the formerly p l a t t e d road? 4. W h e t h e r a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r of l a n d a d j o i n i n g a d e d i - c a t e d r o a d w a y , where t h e p u r c h a s e d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n y p o r t i o n of the roadway, acquires any interest therein if the roadway has been c l o s e d ? 5. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s are e n t i t l e d t o a d e c r e e q u i e t i n g t i t l e i n them t o t h e l a n d s , u n d e r claim o f a c q u i s i t i o n by o p e r a t i o n o f t h e l a w , w i t h o u t payment of of the 6. premises Whether for Ravalli the t a x e s or b e i n g i n p o s s e s s i o n statutory County should period be of ordered time? to pay respondents1 attorney fees? Did t h e s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of l a n d s d e s i g n a t e d f o r s t r e e t s and alleys in the 1909 plat create a public highway? In our periods analysis here of the we involved, controlling emphasize statutes that during the has been there c o n s t a n t and c o n t i n u o u s amendment and m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u t e s p e r t a i n i n g to s t r e e t s , r o a d s and h i g h w a y s from t h e 1 8 9 5 c o d e o n down t h r o u g h t o t h e p r e s e n t . I t t h e r e f o r e becomes c r i t i c a l l y n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e s t a t u t e s as a c t u a l l y i n e f f e c t a t any specific date. As previously stated, t h e 1 9 0 9 c e r t i f i c a t e of d e d i c a t i o n i n pertinent part stated: "The l a n d i n c l u d e d i n a l l s t r e e t s , a v e n u e s , alleys, shown on s a i d p l a t are h e r e b y g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e u s e of t h e p u b l i c forever. " .. . In the 3470, making of this plat, R e v i s e d Codes o f s i n c e a t l e a s t 1895. the owners complied Montana 1 9 0 7 , w h i c h had In addition, with Section been i n e f f e c t s e c t i o n 3475, Revised Codes o f Montana 1 9 0 7 , as a l s o i n e f f e c t s i n c e 1 8 9 5 , p r o v i d e d i n per- tinent part: ... ... g r a n t to t h e p u b l i c marked "Every o r n o t e d as s u c h o n t h e p l a t of t h e c i t y or t o w n , o r a d d i t i o n , m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d , to a l l i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s , a s a d e e d t o t h e s a i d donee." We, therefore, find that c o d e s i n t h e making o f there was compliance is the 1907 t h e d e d i c a t i o n , and t h a t s u c h d e d i c a t i o n m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d as a d e e d t o t h e p u b l i c . dedication with described in section 1337, The e f f e c t of t h a t Revised Codes of Montana 1 9 0 7 , which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s : . . . " A l l highways, r o a d s , streets, a l l e y s , laid out by the public or i f l a i d o u t o r e r e c t e d b y o t h e r s , d e d i c a t e d or aband o n e d to t h e p u b l i c , are p u b l i c highways. " . . ., ... . . . The f o r e g o i n g s e c t i o n w a s e n a c t e d as a p a r t o f c h a p t e r 44 o f t h e 1 9 0 3 S e s s i o n Laws. In addition, t i o n 1342, Revised Codes of i n t h e same s e s s i o n l a w s , sec- Montana 1 9 0 7 , was e n a c t e d w h i c h pertinent part stated: "By t a k i n g or a c c e p t i n g l a n d f o r a highway t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e o n l y t h e r i g h t o f way and t h e i n c i d e n t s n e c e s s a r y to e n j o y i n g and maint a i n i n g t h e same . . ." in We, therefore, c o n c l u d e t h a t by t h e d e d i c a t i o n , roadway or the s t r e e t h e r e i n q u e s t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d by t h e 1 9 0 7 c o d e s a s b e i n g I n a d d i t i o n , we h o l d t h a t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h a " p u b l i c highway." t h e p l a t d e d i c a t i o n to t h e p u b l i c was t h e e q u i v a - the statutes, l e n t of a right-of-way the right-of-way d e e d u n d e r which t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e d o n l y and incidents necessary t a i n i n g t h e p u b l i c highway. tion create did Was the a platted road t h e r e f o r e , hold t h a t the dedica- We, public to e n j o y i n g and main- roadway closed and or highway abandoned by in the 1909. Ravalli C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s on May 3 , 1 9 4 4 ? 1935, p r o v i d e s t h a t t e n , or a m a j o r i t y S e c t i o n 1 6 3 5 , R.C.M. of t h e f r e e h o l d e r s o f a r o a d d i s t r i c t , may p e t i t i o n , in writing, t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s to d i s c o n t i n u e a n y p u b l i c h i g h The r e c o r d h e r e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t s u c h a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d . way. Section 1637, followed on 1935, R.C.M. investigating g r a n t i n g t h e p r a y e r of S e c t i o n 1638, the the feasibility procedure and to desirability be of t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t is n o t p e r t i n e n t h e r e . 1935, R.C.M. describes is t h e s e c t i o n which d e s c r i b e s the a c t i o n t o be t a k e n by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r v a c a t i o n and i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s : " A f t e r t h e commissioners s h a l l have c o n s i d e r e d t h e p e t i t i o n , p r o v i d e d t h a t n o t more t h a n o n e member o f t h e b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s and t h e c o u n t y s u r v e y o r s h a l l act as v i e w e r s i n making t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y s h a l l make a n e n t r y on t h e i r m i n u t e s af t h e i r d e c i s i o n w i t h r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o , and c a u s e n o t i c e o f t h e i r a c t i o n o n s a i d p e t i t i o n t o be s e n t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and to a l l l a n d o w n e r s as d i s c l o s e d by t h e l a s t a s s e s s m e n t r o l l s o f t h e c o u n t y , owning l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e r o a d w a y p r o p o s e d t o be discontinued ... ." A s previously described, t h e county commissioners complied w i t h t h i s section. They d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r o a d s w e r e n o t b e i n g u s e d a s p u b l i c r o a d s and c l o s i n g t h e same would n o t i n c o n v e n i e n c e t h e p u b l i c and c o n c l u d e d and recommended t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d r o a d s be closed as petitioned c o n s t i t u t e a n e n t r y of for. These actions t h e d e c i s i o n of are sufficient to t h e county commissioners i n t h e i r m i n u t e s as r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h e code s e c t i o n . With regard to notice of their action, s e c t i o n 1638 d o e s r e q u i r e t h a t n o t i c e be s e n t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and t o a l l l a n d o w n e r s owning l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e roadway, b u t o n l y a f t e r t h e abandonment. The record does not p o s i t i v e l y d i s c l o s e t h a t such n o t i c e w a s given. However, w e f i n d t h a t a n y q u e s t i o n w h i c h c o u l d be r a i s e d i n t h a t r e g a r d is a n s w e r e d by s e c t i o n 1 6 5 1 , 1 9 3 5 , which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s : R.C.M. "None o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be i n v a l i d b y r e a s o n of a n y d e f e c t , i n f o r m a l i t y or i r r e g u l a r i t y t h e r e i n which does n o t prejudice the substantial rights of property owners immediately concerned. " ... A s contained t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s to i n s e c t i o n 1 6 3 8 , t h e power of v a c a t e was n o t d e p e n d e n t upon t h e g i v i n g o f n o t i c e to e i t h e r t h e The p u r p o s e o b v i o u s l y was to p e t i t i o n e r s o r a b u t t i n g landowners. g i v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y on t h e p a r t of s u c h p a r t i e s to o b j e c t a f t e r t h e a b a n d o n m e n t , s h o u l d t h e y c h o o s e t o d o so. that at no time since abandonment The e v i d e n c e shows i n 1944 have q u e s t i o n b e e n used f o r s t r e e t and r o a d p u r p o s e s . of any q u e s t i o n tioners conclude being raised by abutting i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t p e r i o d of that the proceedings the roads in In the absence landowners or p e t i - more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s , w e cannot now be questioned. W e d o h a v e a n a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of section 1614, R.C.M. 1935, which in pertinent part states: " A l l p u b l i c highways once e s t a b l i s h e d must c o n t i n u e t o be p u b l i c h i g h w a y s u n t i l aband o n e d by o p e r a t i o n of l a w , o r by t h e o r d e r o f t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e y a r e s i t u a t e d ; b u t no o r d e r t o a b a n d o n a n y highway s h a l l be v a l i d u n l e s s p r e c e d e d b y d u e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as provided i n t h i s act; (Emphasis added. ) . . . . . ." On i t s f a c e , t h i s code s e c t i o n , which was i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e o f a b a n d o n m e n t , a p p e a r s t o r e q u i r e d u e n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g p r i o r t o t h e o r d e r of abandonment. A s we r e v i e w t h e h i s t o r y of this e s e c t i o n , w f i n d t h a t it was a p a r t of " t h e G e n e r a l Highway Law" a s enacted i n Chapter 72 of t h e 1 9 1 3 S e s s i o n Laws. contained various provisions with regard Chapter 72, to t h e p r o c e d u r e t o be f o l l o w e d upon c r e a t i n g o r a b a n d o n i n g h i g h w a y s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r , i n d i c a t e d a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t c e r t a i n r e p o r t s are r e q u i r e d , n o t i c e o f a d a t e o f h e a r i n g is r e q u i r e d , and a h e a r i n g r e q u i r e d p r i o r to action. t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g n o t ice and h e a r i n g However, a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e 1 9 1 3 law were e l i m i n a t e d by s u b s e q u e n t amendm e n t s t o t h e highway laws. The r e s u l t was t h a t i n 1 9 4 4 , w e h a v e t h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t of s e c t i o n 1614 t h a t an o r d e r t o abandon s h a l l n o t be v a l i d u n l e s s p r e c e d e d by d u e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as " p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a c t , " and t h e 1 9 3 5 c o d e s d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r t h e r e f o r e , conclude t h a t the provi- s u c h n o t i c e and h e a r i n g . We, s i o n f o r due n o t i c e h e a r i n g as d e s c r i b e d R.C.M. result, and i n s e c t i o n 1614, 1 9 3 5 , had b e e n e l i m i n a t e d b y s u b s e q u e n t amendments. we have concluded required, and that the As a t h a t no p r i o r n o t i c e and h e a r i n g was procedure followed by the county com- m i s s i o n e r s i n 1 9 4 4 d i d comply w i t h t h e code s e c t i o n s as t h e n i n effect. A p p e l l a n t s n e x t a r g u e t h a t even i f t h e road w a s c l o s e d by t h e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' a c t i o n , t i t l e to t h e roadway d o e s n o t v e s t i n t h e a d j o i n i n g landowners b u t remains i n t h e p u b l i c u n a f f e c t e d by t h e d i s c o n t i n u a n c e . A s s t a t e d above, the i n t e r e s t the public a c q u i r e d by t h e o r i g i n a l d e d i c a t i o n had t h e e f f e c t o f a n e a s e m e n t f o r road purpose, not a f e e simple t r a n s f e r . S e c t i o n 70-17-101, MCA, provides : "The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s or s e r v i t u d e s upon l a n d may be a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d a s i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s and a r e t h e n c a l l e d easements: " ( 4 ) t h e right-of-way;" The g r a n t o f an easement g r a n t of t i t l e t o t h e land. 1 5 8 Mont. 507, 493 P.2d is t h e g r a n t of a u s e and not a B o l i n g e r v. C i t y of Bozeman ( 1 9 7 2 ) , 1062. As the original dedication was o n l y a g r a n t o f u s e and n o t o n e of t i t l e , t i t l e was n e v e r v e s t e d i n the public. S i n c e t i t l e was n o t v e s t e d i n t h e p u b l i c a t a n y t i m e , t h e r e was no t i t l e w h i c h c a n be s a i d to now r e m a i n w i t h t h e public. A highway which a highway and, is l a w f u l l y v a c a t e d or abandoned ceases to be i n s o f a r as t h e p u b l i c h a s a mere e a s e m e n t of way, t h e t i t l e r e v e r t s t o t h e owners of t h e f e e d i s c h a r g e d from t h e servitude. 5 1 4 2 a t 514. 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, T h i s Court c h o o s e s t o f o l l o w t h e r u l e a d o p t e d i n a number of s t a t e s and w a s stated i n t h e O r e g o n case of P o r t l a n d B a s e b a l l C l u b v . C i t y of P o r t l a n d ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 4 2 O r . 1 3 , 1 8 P.2d 8 1 1 , 8 1 2 : " [wlhere land has been dedicated or appropriated f o r a public street, the fee i n t h e s t r e e t r e m a i n s i n t h e o r i g i n a l o w n e r subj e c t o n l y t o t h e p u b l i c e a s e m e n t , a n d , upon t h e v a c a t i o n o f t h e s t r e e t , it r e v e r t s t o t h e o w n e r of t h e a b u t t i n g p r e m i s e s f r e e d from t h e easement." we street r e v e r t s hold to Therefore, the upon abandonment abutting that landowners, the with fee each in the abutting l a n d o w n e r t a k i n g f e e from t h e e d g e o f h i s or h e r p r o p e r t y to t h e c e n t e r of t h e s t r e e t . A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r of l a n d adj o i n i n g a dedicated roadway, where the purchase does not i n c l u d e a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e roadway, d o e s n o t a c q u i r e a n y i n t e r e s t therein if t h e roadway h a s b e e n c l o s e d . provides: "An owner o f l a n d bounded by a r o a d or s t r e e t is p r e - to sumed shown." own to the center S e c t i o n 70-20-307, thereof, MCA, S e c t i o n 70-16-202, but the provides: MCA, c o n t r a r y may be "A t r a n s f e r of land bounded by a highway p a s s e s t h e t i t l e of t h e p e r s o n whose e s t a t e i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e s o i l o f t h e highway i n f r o n t of t h e c e n t e r thereof unless a different intent I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e above-named appears statutes, from the grant." t h i s Court adopted t h e m i n o r i t y r u l e t h a t a b o u n d a r y t o and w i t h t h e s i d e of a s t r e e t c a r r i e s t h e f e e t o t h e c e n t e r of i n t e n t a p p e a r s from t h e d e e d . Mont. N.J.L. 454, 1 8 7 P.2d 542. 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 , 23 Am.Rep. the street unless the contrary McPherson v. W quoted e Monegan ( 1 9 4 7 ) r 1 2 0 from S a l t e r v. Jonas, 39 229: ". . . I n o u r p r a c t i c e , i n t h e c o n v e y a n c e of l o t s bounded by s t r e e t s , t h e p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f i s t h a t t h e s t r e e t to i t s c e n t r e is conveyed w i t h t h e l o t . Among t h e mass of p e o p l e it is undoubtedly supposed t h a t t h e street belongs as a n a p p u r t e n a n c e , to t h e c o n t i g u o u s prop e r t y , and t h a t t h e t i t l e t o t h e l a t t e r c a r r i e s w i t h it a t i t l e to t h e f o r m e r . . ." As plaintiffs did not argue that they are e n t i t l e d to a decree quieting title in them under a claim of adverse p o s s e s s i o n , w e w i l l n o t comment upon t h a t i s s u e . R e s p o n d e n t a s k s t h a t a p p e l l a n t be o r d e r e d to pay r e s p o n d e n t ' s attorney fees. is respondent M.R.App.Civ.P. Where t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d f o r a p p e a l , a not Erdman v. 1 7 7 , 1 8 4 , 577 P.2d reasonably in entitled 55, 59. issue, and to C & C Sales, . damages Inc. under the respondent's Rule 32, ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont. Here, t h e o w n e r s h i p of f e e s on a p p e a l m u s t be d e n i e d . Af f i r m e d recover request t h e l a n d was for attorney
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.
