Duck Inn, Inc. v. Montana State University-Northern

• Decision Date: 09 December 1997
• Docket Number: No. 97-236,UNIVERSITY-NORTHER,D,97-236
• Citation: Duck Inn, Inc. v. Montana State University-Northern, 949 P.2d 1179, 285 Mont. 519 (Mont. 1997)
• Parties: , 123 Ed. Law Rep. 351 The DUCK INN, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. MONTANA STATEefendant and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1179

949 P.2d 1179

285 Mont. 519, 123 Ed. Law Rep. 351

The DUCK INN, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v.MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY-NORTHERN, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 97-236.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Oct. 9, 1997.

Decided Dec. 9, 1997.

Chris R. Young, Young & Brown, Havre, for Appellant.

LeRoy H. Schramm, Chief Legal Counsel, Montana University System, Helena, for Respondent.

GRAY, Justice.

The Duck Inn, Inc.(Duck Inn) appeals from the judgment entered by the Twelfth Judicial District Court, Hill County, on its order granting summary judgment to Montana State University--Northern(Northern) and dismissing the Duck Inn's complaint.We affirm.

The issues on appeal are:

1.Did the District Court err in concluding that Northern's conduct in renting its facilities to private persons and organizations is authorized by § 20-25-302,MCA(1993)?

2.Did the District Court err in concluding that § 20-25-302,MCA(1993), does not violate the Montana Constitution?

BACKGROUND

The Duck Inn is a Montana corporation with its principal place of business in Havre, Montana.As part of its business, the Duck Inn provides facilities, food and beverages to the general public for the purpose of hosting parties, reunions, conventions and receptions.

Northern is a tax-supported unit of the Montana university system; its buildings and property belong to the State of Montana.Northern is funded via taxes and general fund appropriations, student fees and tuition, fees charged to users of campus services and facilities, federal grants, bond proceeds, interest income and private gifts.

Northern regularly rents its facilities to private persons and organizations for parties, reunions, conventions and receptions.Its campus food service provider has the exclusive right, pursuant to contract, to cater food service for all such gatherings on Northern's campus and, in return, Northern receives 10% of the gross revenues realized from the catering.In addition, Northern receives 100% of the revenues received as payment for the rental of campus facilities.Northern applies these revenues to supplement the operating funds available for maintenance of the rented facilities and to pay off the bond issues to which the revenues have been pledged.

In 1994, the Duck Inn filed a complaint for declaratory judgment and application for preliminary injunction against Northern.The complaint alleged that Northern's leasing of its facilities to private persons and organizations for various events placed Northern in direct competition with the Duck Inn's business and violated Montana statutes.It also alleged that, if Northern's leasing activities did not exceed statutory authority, the applicable statute violated the Montana Constitution.The Duck Inn sought a declaratory judgment prohibiting Northern's leasing activities and an order to show cause why its application for a preliminary injunction should not be granted.

After a hearing, the District Court denied the Duck Inn's request for a preliminary injunction.It determined that, while the Duck Inn had shown that Northern did compete with the Duck Inn's business, it was not clear that such competition was prohibited by statute or the Montana Constitution.

Northern subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis that it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.After full briefing by the parties, the District Court concluded that Northern's practice of renting its facilities did not violate either § 20-25-302,MCA(1993), or the Montana Constitution, but observed that the record indicated that Northern might not have followed its own policies regarding the use of facilities.On that basis, the District Court denied Northern's motion to dismiss and granted the Duck Inn leave to amend the complaint to seek damages and injunctive relief based on alleged violations of Northern's policies.Thereafter, the Duck Inn filed a notice of appeal of the District Court's order and, on November 7, 1995, this Court dismissed the appeal without prejudice because no final judgment had been entered.

The Duck Inn subsequently filed an amended complaint generally alleging, in addition to the bases asserted in the original complaint, that Northern's leasing activities violated its own policies.The parties filed cross motions for summary judgment and the District Court ultimately granted Northern's motion relating to the alleged violation of policies on the basis that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether Northern violated its current policies relating to the rental of campus facilities.The court incorporated its earlier decision that Northern's leasing practices did not violate either Montana statute or the Montana Constitution into its order on summary judgment and ordered the dismissal of the Duck Inn's complaint.Judgment was entered accordingly and the Duck Inn appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

We observe at the outset that the Duck Inn does not appeal from the District Court's determination that no genuine issue of material fact existed with regard to whether Northern's rental practices violated its own policies.The Duck Inn's appeal is limited to that portion of the District Court's order on summary judgment which incorporated its earlier legal conclusions that Northern's leasing activities did not violate § 20-25-302,MCA(1993), or the Montana Constitution.Under such a circumstance, we need only determine whether the district court correctly interpreted the law.SeeAsh Grove Cement Co. v. Jefferson County(1997), 283 Mont. 486, 943 P.2d 85, 89, 54 St.Rep. 756, 759(citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

1.Did the District Court err in concluding that Northern's conduct in renting its facilities to private persons and organizations is authorized by § 20-25-302,MCA(1993)?

Section 20-25-302,MCA(1993), provides, in pertinent part, that the regents of the Montana university system may

(5) rent the facilities to other public or private persons, firms, and corporations for such uses, at such times, for such periods, and at such rates as in the regents' judgment will be consistent with the full use thereof for academic purposes and will add to the revenues available for capital costs and debt service[.]

The only portion of the statute which is at issue here is the meaning of the phrase "consistent with.""In interpreting a statute, we look first to the plain meaning of the words it contains."Werre v. David(1996), 275 Mont. 376, 385, 913 P.2d 625, 631(citation omitted).Moreover, in the search for plain meaning, we give words their usual and ordinary meaning.Werre, 913 P.2d at 631(citations omitted).

MERRIAM WEBSTER'S COLLEGIATE DICTIONARY 247 (10th ed.1993) defines consistent as "free from variation or contradiction;""compatible."THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY 402 (3rd ed.1992), also defines consistent as "compatible."Applying this definition to § 20-25-302(5),MCA(1993), we conclude that the statute expressly authorizes Northern to rent its facilities to any person or entity for any use, at any time, which is compatible with--and does not contradict--the full use of the facilities for academic purposes and which also adds to the revenues available for capital costs and debt service.There is no showing on the record before us that Northern's rentals are incompatible with, or contradict, the full use of the facilities for academic purposes.Furthermore, it is agreed that Northern receives revenues from the rentals which add to revenues available for capital costs or debt service.

The Duck Inn contends that the phrase "consistent with" means "directly related to" Northern's academic purposes.It provides no authority for such a definition, however.An appellant bears the burden of establishing error by the trial court and Rule 23, M.R.App.P., requires an appellant to cite to authority for the position being advanced on appeal.The Duck Inn having failed to do so, it cannot establish error with regard to the District Court's definition of "consistent" as, among other things, "compatible, not contradictory" and the court's corresponding conclusion that § 20-25-302,MCA(1993), authorizes Northern's leasing activities.

The Duck Inn also asserts, although obliquely, that it is unwise and unfair for tax-supported institutions such as Northern to rent their facilities in direct competition with private sector businesses.Many people would agree with the Duck Inn's assertion.As a general rule, however, the public policy of the State of Montana is set by the Montana Legislature through its enactment of statutes, and this Court may not concern itself with the wisdom of such statutes.See, e.g., Gryczan v. State(1997), 283 Mont. 433, ----, 942 P.2d 112, 125, 54 St.Rep. 699, 708;Estate of Strever v. Cline(1996), 278 Mont. 165, 180, 924 P.2d 666, 675;Young v. Board of Trustees, Etc.(1931), 90 Mont. 576, 584, 4 P.2d 725, 728.

We also observe that the Duck Inn effectively concedes that § 20-25-302,MCA(1993), authorizes Northern's rentals by arguing that the statute authorizes such rentals "only if its administrative rules allowing such conduct are strictly confined within the applicable legislative guidelines, and only if its conduct strictly adheres to both the letter and spirit of the policies and procedures adopted by the Board of Regents and Northern."While it cannot be gainsaid that administrative regulations or, as here, campus policies cannot authorize conduct not within the purview of the statute(see, e.g., Bick v. State, Dept. of Justice(1986), 224 Mont. 455, 457, 730 P.2d 418, 420), the Duck Inn did not challenge the policies under which Northern rents its facilities on the basis that they are too expansive or, indeed, at all.It merely contended in the District Court that Northern was violating its own policies.The District Court determined otherwise and, as noted above, the Duck Inn has not appealed that...