MONTANA POWER CO v CAREY

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 84-529 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1985 THE MONTANA POWER COPIPANY, A Montana corporation, Plaintiff, MARTIN CAREY, WALT DUTTON , JESSIE S. FELSHEIM, SUSMTPJE L. HUCKABA, MARY LEAVITT, et al. Defendants and Appellants, and IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION FOR BENEFICIAL WATER USE PERMIT NO. 24921-s41e by REMI & BETTY JO MONFORTOW, Petitioners and Respondents. APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District, In and for the County of Lewis & Clark, The Eonorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellants: W. William Leaphart argued for Buckaba Helena, Montana John R. Kline, Helena, Montana & Felsheim, For Respondents: P4oore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling; Perry J. Moore argued for Monfortons, Bozeman, Montana For Amicus Curiae: Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman; R. Paul Stahl argued for Montana Power, Helena, PIontana Ted Doney, Helena, Montana Submitted: April 17, 1985 Decided: June 6, 1985 Clerk - M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e Court. T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, in and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k , which d e n i e d a t t o r n e y f e e s t o S u s a n n e Huckaba a n d J e s s i e S. u n d e r s e c t i o n 85-2-125, Remi and Betty Felsheim, appellants, (hereinafter Monfortons) MCA. Jo Monforton a p p l i e d t o t h e Department o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and Conservation ( h e r e i n a f t e r DNRC) f o r a w a t e r u s e p e r m i t t o a p p r o p r i a t e a t r i b u t a r y o f t h e Boulder River. f r o m Cold S p r i n g s , water The Montana filed Power Company objections to the and a p p e l l a n t s , ( h e r e i n a f t e r MPC) application. On March 1982, 1, f o l l o w i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g w h e r e a p p e l l a n t s and a l l o b j e c t o r s w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d , t h e DNRC i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n e d upon s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s . In April, review judicial remove 1982, the objector review of of the conditions t o the the the Monfortons the application, Following District ruled requirements placed a that upon a order permit. petition and Likewise, filed a petition final DNRC's consolidated. Court final DNRC's on filed order. hearing MPC, an petitions the petitions, limitations Monforton the to f o r judic.ia1 time permit the sought The on s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d t h e Monfortons' for by and A'F~Y.E~ the other the DNRC right t o appropriate The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p o s e d a t t o r n e y f e e s upon M C a n d P water. appellants. The appellants and MC P appealed Court decision t o t h i s Court. I n Montana Carey 336, (Mont. District 19841, Court reinstated. order 685 P.2d was reversed As t o attorney fees, 41 and the Power Company v . St.Rep. the District 1233, the DNRC o r d e r was t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e M o n f o r t o n s w e r e n o t t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " and t h u s , w e r e n o t entitled t o attorney t h e D i s t r i c t Court fees. f o r an favor contending t h a t they, the "prevailing party" The a p p e l l a n t s t h e n p e t i t i o n e d award of fees i n their attorney r a t h e r t h a n t h e Monfortons, were under section 85-2-125, MCA. A p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . O n w appeal, are concerned w i t h one a p p e l l a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o an award o f s e c t i o n 85-2-125, The for Carey, fees supra, Whether a t t o r n e y f e e s under MCA. a p p e l l a n t s maintain attorney issue. was 685 P.2d because denied a t 341, in the Montana Monfortons' Power claim Company v. t h e Monfortons w e r e n o t t h e "prevailing party." Moreover, Court ruled f a v o r by r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t in r u l i n g which lants their increased submit t h a t because t h e water right t h e Montana Supreme application, they ultimately prevailed appel- i n t h i s matter and t h e r e f o r e w e r e e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s . The question regarding attorney fees was fully c o n s i d e r e d , d e t e r m i n e d and a d j u d g e d i n Montana Power Company v. Carey, supra. The final paragraph in that decision stated: "In conjunction with t h i s ruling, t h e Monforton's [ s i c ] claim f o r attorney f e e s must be d e n i e d . Since t h e f i n a l the o r d e r o f t h e DNRC i s a f f i r m e d , Monfortons a r e n o t t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y and c a n n o t r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from t h e respondents." Montana Power Company v . C a r e y , 685 P.2d a t 341. The District this action, Court's d e c i s i o n was WE! h o l d w i t h e v e r y i s s u e i n c l u d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f award of a t t o r n e y f e e s was d e t e r m i n e d . conclusive. reversed. The judgment o f t h i s C o u r t i s I t a p p l i e s t o a l l subsequent s t a g e s of t h e cause including appellants' p e t i t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 133 Mont. C e n t r a l Montana S t o c k y a r d s v . F r a s e r 1 6 8 , 320 P.2d 981; Brennan v . Jones (1936), 1 0 1 Mont. 550, Mont. 1 9 9 P. 276, The 5 5 P.2d 697; P o w e r Company, a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 85-2-125, not ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60 696. Montana Court w i l l I n Re S m i t h ' s E s t a t e entertain s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n when appearing a s amicus MCA, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . issues on s u c h i s s u e s are n o t raised "Since a m i c i c u r i a e a r e n o t p a r t i e s and c a n n o t assume t h e f u n c t i o n s o f p a r t i e s , n o r c r e a t e , extend o r e n l a r g e i s s u e s , we have considered t h e b r i e f s o f amici only insofar a s they coincide with t h e issues r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e action. S e e L o n g v. O ' D e l l ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 60 Wash.2d. 1 5 1 , 372 P.2d 548; C i t y of P h o e n i x v. P h o e n i x C i v i c Aud. a n d Con. C e n t . A s s ' n . ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 9 9 A r i z . 2 7 0 , 408 P.2d 8 1 8 , r e h . den. 100 A r i z . 101, 412 P.2d 43." Sager M o n t a n a W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v. (Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 6 2 0 P . 2 d 1 1 8 9 , 3 7 S t . R e p . 1897. The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d . / This constitutionality parties t o the action. We concur: curiae of a by t h e

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.