Rieman v. Anderson, 96-456
| Decision Date | 08 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | No. 96-456,96-456 |
| Citation | 935 P.2d 1122,282 Mont. 139 |
| Parties | David E. RIEMAN, Frances S. Rieman, Dianne L. Christmann, Allen H. Christmann, Richard D. Tebay, Guy Weimer and Janice Weimer, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Roger ANDERSON, Ted Berst, Minnie Berst, Mike McCoy, Diane McCoy, and Clarine Stovall, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Gary L. Spaeth, Helena, for Plaintiffs and Appellants.
James A. Hubble, Hubble & Ridgeway, Stanford, for Defendants and Respondents.
David and Francis Rieman, Dianne and Allen Christmann, Guy and Janice Weimer, and Richard Tebay (Appellants) sought a determination of their easement right to use the Nutting Ditch and its laterals, damages caused by interference with that right, and attorney fees. The Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, concluded that Appellants' predecessor in interest had abandoned his ditch easement, and awarded attorney fees to Respondents. We affirm.
Appellants raise five issues on appeal:
1. Do Respondents have standing to raise abandonment?
2. Did the District Court err when it concluded that Appellants' predecessor in interest abandoned his ditch easement?
3. Did the District Court err when it concluded that Appellants' predecessor in interest had authority to abandon his ditch easement?
4. Did the District Court err when it concluded that a ditch easement can be abandoned even though the easement continued to be used by Respondents?
5. Did the District Court err in awarding attorney fees to Respondents?
The Old Mill Ditch Company, Inc., is a Montana corporation that diverts water from the Yellowstone River to the Nutting Ditch based on water shares owned by lateral users. Old Mill does not claim an interest in the Nutting Ditch or its laterals. The Nutting Ditch flows through sections of Stillwater and Yellowstone Counties from a headgate located on the Old Mill Ditch in Section 27, Township 2 South, Range 23 East, M.P.M., Stillwater County, Montana. The disputed side lateral diverts from the Nutting Ditch on property owned by Guy and Janice Weimer in the SE 1/4 NE 1/4 of Section 26, Township 2 South, Range 23 East, M.P.M., Stillwater County, Montana. (See attached map.)
Appellants, except the Weimers, own real property in Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 23 East, M.P.M., Yellowstone County, Montana, and trace ownership of their real property and Old Mill stock to Larry Myers. Roger Anderson, Ted and Minnie Berst, Mike and Diane McCoy, and Clarine Stovall (Respondents) are owners of real property located east of Appellants, and use water from the Old Mill and Nutting Ditches.
Owners of Old Mill stock are entitled to use water from the Old Mill Ditch. Appellants and Respondents own Old Mill stock as follows:
Riemans 14 shares Anderson 18 shares
Christmanns 3 shares Bersts 7 shares
Tebay 20 shares McCoys 53 shares
Weimers 4 shares Stovall 38 shares
It is undisputed that before 1974, Appellants and Respondents, or their predecessors in interest, except the Weimers, had a ditch easement to use the Nutting Ditch to transport water from the Old Mill Ditch to their properties. Respondents have an easement in the Nutting Ditch to transport water to their property located down ditch from Appellants.
In 1972, Myers purchased real property located in Section 25, Township 2 South, Range 23 East, M.P.M., Yellowstone County, Montana, and acquired Old Mill stock with it. Two years later he mortgaged the property to John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company. Until 1976, he irrigated the property by using a side lateral from the Nutting Ditch. Myers' historical access for the side lateral was a diversion located on the Nutting Ditch on property now owned by the Weimers.
In 1974, Myers stopped paying the assessments for his shares of Old Mill stock. Thereafter, they were paid by John Hancock. In 1975, because Myers was experiencing financial difficulties, he decided to try to subdivide his property. He contacted Harlan Lund, a surveyor, who prepared a certificate of survey subdividing the property into twenty-acre residential tracts.
During preparation of the survey, Myers and Lund discussed the gravelly soil and high water table on Myers' property. These conditions could prevent the property from being subdivided into residential tracts with underground septic systems. From 1974 to 1981, Myers informed Lund and neighboring landowners that he did not intend to further irrigate his property. In 1975, he plugged the diversion from the Nutting Ditch to his side lateral by filling it with dirt. At approximately the same time, he built a rough road system for his proposed subdivision and, in the process, plowed in his irrigation ditches. After 1976, Myers did not irrigate into his side lateral or assist in maintaining the Nutting Ditch. In the early 1980s, he removed several culverts along the side lateral so that water could not flow onto his property.
In September 1976, John Hancock commenced foreclosure proceedings against Myers' property. Plaintiffs, except the Weimers, acquired their property from James Murphy, the Federal District Court trustee responsible for selling Myers' property. In conjunction with the sale, Murphy In 1991 and 1992, the Weimers attempted to pump water from the Nutting Ditch. At approximately the same time, the remaining Appellants attempted to access water from the Nutting Ditch into the side lateral by reopening Myers' historical diversion. Respondents learned of the pump and diversion and had them removed.
transferred shares of Old Mill stock to the Riemans, Christmanns, and Tebay. He took the position that the stock did not guarantee that its holders would receive water. The Weimers' predecessor in interest did not use the Nutting Ditch. Instead, the Weimers acquired Old Mill stock from individuals other than the predecessors in interest to their property.
On May 13, 1993, Appellants filed a complaint claiming a right to use the Nutting Ditch, and its laterals that Respondents interfered with their right to use the ditch, and requesting damages and attorney fees. Respondents asserted as an affirmative defense that Myers had abandoned his easement in the Nutting Ditch before the Riemans, Christmanns, and Tebay acquired title to their property, and that the Weimers never possessed an easement to use the Nutting Ditch.
Following a five-day trial, the District Court, sitting without a jury, concluded that the Weimers never had an easement to use the Nutting Ditch. It further concluded that the Nutting Ditch easement formerly owned by Myers, as predecessor in interest to the Riemans, Christmanns, and Tebay, was abandoned by Myers as demonstrated by his acts and expressions of intent from 1974 to 1981. The court also awarded attorney fees to Respondents pursuant to § 70-17-112(5), MCA. This appeal followed.
A district court's ruling on standing is a conclusion of law. We review conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. Jim's Excavating Service v. HKM Assoc. (1994), 265 Mont. 494, 501, 878 P.2d 248, 252.
Appellants argue that Respondents lack standing to assert the affirmative defense of abandonment because Respondents are co-owners of the Nutting Ditch, the dominant easement. Appellants assert that abandonment should be reserved as a defense for the owners of the servient easement--i.e. up ditch landowners not parties to this action. Respondents claim that the District Court raised standing for the first time after the trial had been completed, therefore barring its consideration on appeal.
Objections to standing cannot be waived and may be raised by a court sua sponte. Stewart v. Bd. of Cty. Com'rs of Big Horn Cty. (1977), 175 Mont. 197, 204, 573 P.2d 184, 188. We conclude that the issue of Respondents' standing to assert abandonment as an affirmative defense is properly before this Court.
Respondents in this case have a personal stake in the litigation. Respondents, all ranchers, would have to share a ditch easement and water flowing therein with many more people than they did when Myers irrigated his property. If Appellants prevailed, Respondents would also be required to pay attorney fees and damages for interfering with Appellants' pump and diversion systems.
Therefore, we hold that Respondents have standing to assert all their defenses, including an affirmative defense that Appellants' predecessor in interest abandoned his easement to use the Nutting Ditch. The District Court did not err when it concluded that Respondents have standing.
Abandonment is a question of fact. Thomas v. Ball (1923), 66 Mont. 161, 166, 213 P. 597, 599. This Court reviews findings to determine whether they are clearly erroneous by using a three-part test.
First, the Court will review the record to see if the findings are supported by substantial evidence. Second, if the findings are supported by substantial evidence we will determine if the trial court has misapprehended the effect of the evidence. Third, if substantial evidence exists and the effect of the evidence has not been misapprehended the Court may still find that a finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, a review of the record leaves the court with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Interstate Production Credit v. DeSaye (1991), 250 Mont. 320, 323, 820 P.2d 1285, 1287 (citation omitted).
The Montana Supreme Court has previously explained the requirements to prove abandonment.
In order for there to be abandonment there must be an intent to abandon. An intent...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. State
...284 Mont. 229, 235, 943 P.2d 1282, 1286 (identifying standing as a "threshold requirement of every case"); Rieman v. Anderson (1997), 282 Mont. 139, 144, 935 P.2d 1122, 1125 (stating that objections to standing cannot be waived and may be raised by the court sua ¶ 5 Moreover, since this cas......
-
Arrowhead Sch. Dist.# 75, Park Co. v. Klyap, 01-332.
......District Court, 2000 MT 266, ¶ 31, 302 Mont. 39, ¶ 31, 22 P.3d 166, ¶ 31; State v. Anderson, 1999 MT 60, ¶ 21, 293 Mont. 490, ¶ 21, 977 P.2d 983, ¶ 21; State ex rel. Booth v. District ...Sol (1997), 282 Mont. 69, 76, 936 P.2d 307, 311 ; Rieman v. Anderson (1997), 282 Mont. 139, 147, 935 P.2d 1122, 1126-27 ; Small v. Good (1997), 284 Mont. ......
-
Durden v. Hydro Flame Corp.
...(1997), 282 Mont. 410, 421, 938 P.2d 650, 657; DeVoe v. State (1997), 281 Mont. 356, 370, 935 P.2d 256, 265; Rieman v. Anderson (1997), 282 Mont. 139, 147, 935 P.2d 1122, 1126-27; Whalen v. Taylor (1996), 278 Mont. 293, 302, 925 P.2d 462, ¶6 We will, however, address the following issues in......
-
Dac v. Monroe Const.
...Mont. 361, 989 P.2d 364 (citing Matter of Paternity of Vainio, 284 Mont. 229, 235, 943 P.2d 1282, 1286 (1997); Rieman v. Anderson, 282 Mont. 139, 144, 935 P.2d 1122, 1125 (1997)). Moreover, this Court has held that "unless he is an intended third-party beneficiary of the contract, a strange......