MATL LLP v. Salois
Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary
Want to stay in the know about new opinions from the Montana Supreme Court?
Sign up for free summaries delivered directly to your inbox. Learn More ›
You already receive new opinion summaries from Montana Supreme Court. Did you know we offer summary newsletters for even more practice areas and jurisdictions? Explore them here.
Appellant appealed from an order of the district court dismissing its complaint for condemnation and entering judgment in favor of appellee. At issue was whether the district court erred in issuing an order concluding that appellant did not possess the power of eminent domain, either express or implied, and it had no authority to take the private property of a nonconsenting landowner. The court concluded that HB 198 provided appellant authority to pursue eminent domain proceedings and that HB 198 explicitly codified eminent domain authority into the Major Facility Siting Act ("Act"), Title 75, chapter 20. The court held that HB 198 retroactively applied to appellant's certificate issued pursuant to the Act and the explicit language of HB 198 was in conflict with the district court's order. Accordingly, the court reversed the order dismissing appellant's complaint and remanded for further proceedings.
Download PDF
June 7 2011
DA 11-0009
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2011 MT 126
MATL LLP,
Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
LARRY SALOIS, as guardian and conservator
of Shirley J. Salois, a disabled person,
Defendant and Appellee.
APPEAL FROM:
District Court of the Ninth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Glacier, Cause No. DV 10-66
Honorable Laurie McKinnon, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
James H. Goetz, Benjamin J. Alke; Goetz, Gallik & Baldwin,
Bozeman, Montana
For Appellee:
Hertha L. Lund; Lund Law PLLC, Bozeman, Montana
Elizabeth A. Brennan, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Peter G. Scott; Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman, Helena,
Montana (for Jefferson County)
John K. Tabaracci, Robert Erickson; Sullivan, Tabaracci & Rhoades, P.C.,
Missoula, Montana (for NorthWestern Energy)
Submitted on Briefs: June 1, 2011
Decided: June 7, 2011
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
2
Chief Justice Mike McGrath delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1
MATL, LLP (MATL), appeals from an order of the District Court, Ninth Judicial
District, Glacier County, dismissing MATL’s complaint for condemnation and entering
judgment in favor of Larry Salois. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.
¶2
On July 19, 2010, MATL filed a Verified Complaint for Condemnation against Salois.
Salois subsequently moved for summary judgment. The parties briefed the issues, attended
a hearing in District Court, and filed post-hearing briefs. On December 12, 2010, the District
Court issued an order concluding “MATL does not possess the power of eminent domain,
either express or implied, and it has no authority to take the private property of a
nonconsenting landowner.” MATL appeals from that order.
¶3
By motion filed with this Court, MATL directs the Court’s attention to House Bill
198, “An Act Clarifying a Public Utility’s Power of Eminent Domain; Clarifying that a
Person Issued a Certificate Under the Major Facility Siting Act has the Power of Eminent
Domain; and Providing an Immediate Effective Date and Retroactive Applicability Date”
(HB 198). HB 198 was passed by both houses of the 2011 Montana Legislature and became
law without the Governor’s signature. Mont. Ch. 321 L. 2011 (enacted and effective May 9,
2011). The legislation provides:
Section 1. Power of eminent domain. A public utility as defined in
69-3-101 may acquire by eminent domain any interest in property, as provided
in Title 70, chapter 30, for a public use authorized by law to provide service to
the customers of its regulated service.
Section 2. Power to exercise eminent domain. A person issued a
certificate pursuant to this chapter may acquire by eminent domain any interest
3
in property, as provided in Title 70, chapter 30, for a public use authorized by
law to construct a facility in accordance with the certificate.
Section 3. Codification instruction. (1) [Section 1] is intended to be
codified as an integral part of Title 69, chapter 3, part 1, and the provisions of
Title 69, chapter 3, part 1, apply to [section 1].
(2) [Section 2] is intended to be codified as an integral part of Title 75,
chapter 20, part 1, and the provisions of Title 75, chapter 20, part 1, apply to
[section 2].
Section 4. Contingent voidness. If a repeal of the provisions of Title
75, chapter 1, parts 1 through 3, or a repeal of the provisions of Title 75,
chapter 20, parts 1 through 4, is passed and approved during the 62nd
legislative session, then [this act] is void.
Section 5. Effective date. [This act] is effective on passage and
approval.
Section 6.
Retroactive applicability.
[Section 2] applies
retroactively, within the, meaning of 1-2-109, to certificates issued after
September 30, 2008.
¶4
Montana Rule of Evidence 202(b)(3) allows this Court to take judicial notice of
“[r]egulations and legislative enactments issued by or under authority of the United States
and of this and any state of the United States by or for their agencies or administrations.”
HB 198 is a legislative enactment issued under the authority of the State of Montana, and we
take judicial notice of it. See West v. Club at Spanish Peaks L.L.C., 2008 MT 183, ¶ 63, 343
Mont. 434, 186 P.3d 1228.
¶5
A law contained in the statutes of Montana is retroactive only if expressly so declared
by the legislature. Section 1-2-109, MCA; United States v. Juvenile Male, 2011 MT 104, ¶
7, 360 Mont. 317, ___ P.3d. ___. The Legislature explicitly provided for HB 198 to apply
retroactively “to certificates issued after September 30, 2008.” MATL received a Major
4
Facility Siting Act certificate on October 22, 2008. Thus, HB 198 applies to MATL’s
certificate.
¶6
The explicit language of HB 198 conflicts with the District Court’s order. The
District Court concluded that there was no support for MATL’s contention that a “private
merchant transmission line, without express or implied authority for condemnation, may
pursue eminent domain proceedings by virtue of its establishing an enumerated use set forth
in 70-30-102, MCA.” As MATL correctly points out, HB 198 now expressly provides such
authority. Furthermore, the District Court noted that the Major Facility Siting Act, Title 75,
chapter 20, did not include “any provision granting eminent domain authority.” However,
HB 198 now explicitly codifies eminent domain authority into the Major Facility Siting Act.
¶7
HB 198 applies retroactively to MATL’s certificate issued pursuant to the Major
Facility Siting Act. Furthermore, the explicit language of HB 198 is in conflict with the
District Court’s order. We reverse the order of the District Court dismissing MATL’s
complaint for condemnation and remand for further proceedings.
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
We concur:
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
/S/ BETH BAKER
/S/ JIM RICE
5
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.
