State ex rel. Swart v. Stucky
| Decision Date | 11 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 12798,12798 |
| Citation | 167 Mont. 171,536 P.2d 762 |
| Parties | STATE of Montana on relation of Charles R. SWART, Relator and Appellant, v. Carl STUCKY, County Clerk and Recorder of the County of Gallatin, State of Montana, Respondent and Respondent. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Thomas A. Olson, County Atty., Bozeman, Donald C. White, argued, Deputy County Atty., Bezeman, for respondent and respondent.
This is an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus seeking to compel the clerk and recorder of Gallatin County to file an instrument submitted by appellant Charles R. Swart pursuant to section 11-3872, R.C.M. 1947.
The parties are Charles R. Swart, a registered land surveyor (hereinafter referred to as appellant), and Carl Stucky, clerk and recorder of Gallatin County (hereinafter referred to as respondent).
The facts can be summarized in this manner: Appellant was hired by one Priscilla Schutz to complete a survey of a tract of land located in Gallatin County in order to complete a sale of the property. On December 13, 1973, appellant submitted the survey to the respondent for filing pursuant to section 11-3872, the pertinent portion of which states:
'(1) Within one hundred eighty (180) days of the completion of a survey the registered land surveyor responsible for the survey, whether he is privately or publicly employed, shall prepare and file for record a certificate of survey in the county in which the survey was made if the survey:
'(a) provides material evidence not appearing on any map filed with the county clerk and recorder or contained in the records of the United States bureau of land management * * *.'
Respondent clerk and recorder refused to accept the survey as submitted. He contended it must first be submitted to the city county planning board for inspection and approval and be accompanied by a $20 reviewing fee. On December 26, appellant resubmitted the survey for filing with the respondent without having it approved by the city county planning board and was again refused.
Thereafter, appellant commenced this action in the district court seeking a writ of mandamus to compel respondent to file the survey. A hearing was held and on April 15, 1974, the district court entered its findings of fact and conclusions of law. A judgment in favor of respondent was entered on May 3, 1974.
These are the issues as presented on appeal by both parties:
1. Does respondent have a clear legal duty to accept for filing an instrument which represents a certificate of survey on its face without subjecting it to review and approval by the city county planning board or other county officers?
2. Is the $20 reviewing fee proper?
3. Is this appeal moot?
The first issue requires the review of pertinent provisions of the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, section 11-3859, et seq., R.C.M.1947. This Act was passed an an adjunct to the police power of the legislature to promote the public health, safety, adn general welfare through The terms 'certificate of survey', 'plat', and 'subdivision' have important technical meanings that are established by the definition section of the Act. Prior to its amendment in 1974, section 11-3861, R.C.M.1947, stated:
regulation of the subdivision of land in Montana, and to provide a method [167 Mont. 174] of transferring interests in real property by reference to a 'plat' or a 'certificate of survey'. Section 11-3860. The county clerk and recorder is prohibited from recording any instrument which purports to transfer title or possession of a parcel of land which is required to be surveyed unless the required 'certificate of survey' or subdivision 'plat' has been filed and the instrument of transfer describes the tract by reference to the filed 'certificate of survey' or 'plat'. Section 11-3862(3)
'As used in this act, unless the context or subject matter clearly requires otherwise, the following words or phrases shall have the following meanings:
'(1) 'Certificate of survey' means a drawing of a field survey prepared by a registered surveyor for the purpose of disclosing facts pertaining to boundary locations.
'* * *
'(7) 'Preliminary plat' means a neat and scaled drawing of a proposed subdivision showing the layout of streets, alleys, lots, blocks, and other elements of a subdivision which furnish a basis for review by a governing body; and the same shall be accompanied by any proposed covenants to run with the platted land and other elements of the proposed subdivision required to furnish a basis of review by the governing body.
'(8) 'Final plat' means the final drawing of the subdivision and dedication prepared for filing for record with the county clerk and recorder and containing all elements and requirements set forth in this act and in regulations adopted pursuant thereto.
'* * *
'(12) 'Subdivision' means the division of land, or land so divided, into two (2) or more parcels, whether contiguous or not, any of which is ten (10) acres or less, exclusive of public roadways, in size, without regard to the method of description thereof, in order that the title or possession of the parcels or any interest therein may be sold, rented, leased, or otherwise conveyed either immediately or in the future, and shall include any resubdivision of land; and shall further include any condominium or areas providing multiple space for camping trailers, house trailers or mobile homes * * *'.
The classification of the instrument as a subdivision 'plat' or as a 'certificate of survey' is important since the Act requires different treatment, depending upon the classification. If the instrument is classified as a 'plat', it must be submitted to the city or town governing body for review and approval prior to filing. The governing body can approve or reject the plat within 60 days after it has been submitted and after a public hearing has been held. Section 11-3866, R.C.M.1947.
If the instrument is classified as a 'certificate of survey' it need not be subjected to the procedure summarized above. However, it must be filed pursuant to section 11-3872, R.C.M.1947. This is the statute under which appellant attempted to file his survey.
The instrument around which this lawsuit revolves is entitled:
GALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA'
It plainly shows that the single parcel surveyed has an area composed of 44.293 acres. In the righthand corner of the instrument appellant certified that he made the survey and it is correctly described by the document. In addition, appellant certified that the survey was made in compliance with applicable state statutes.
There is no doubt that appellant's docment is a 'certificate of survey' and not a subdivision 'plat' as defined by the Act. Its purpose is to establish boundaries and the property description for a deed on an entire single parcel which contains an area greater than the 10 acre requirement established by section 11-3861(12), prior to its amendment to 20 acres in 1974. Furthermore, the proffered document contains no 'graphical representation of a subdivision showing the division of land into lots, parcles, streets, and alleys, and other divisions and dedications' within the meaning of section 11-3861(6), which sets forth the definition of a 'plat'.
Accordingly, we hold that respondent had a clear legal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
O'TOOLE v. BD. OF TRUST. OF SD RETIREMENT, 22016.
... ... state government until November 1 and August 23, 1996 (respectively). After ... ...
-
State ex rel. Professional Consultants, Inc. v. Board of County Com'rs of Ravalli County
...action. We have twice previously permitted a surveyor to prosecute a writ of mandamus in similar situations. State ex rel. Swart v. Stucky (1975), 167 Mont. 171, 536 P.2d 762; State ex rel. Swart v. Casne (1977), Mont., 564 P.2d 983, 34 St.Rep. As I see it, the essence of "standing" is twof......
-
Bache v. Owens
...not a "plat," the COS filed in this case does not establish an easement pursuant to § 76-3-304, MCA. He cites State ex rel. Swart v. Stucky (1975), 167 Mont. 171, 536 P.2d 762. In that case, a county clerk and recorder refused to accept for filing a survey of a tract of land, on the basis t......
-
State ex rel. Swart v. Molitor, 80-200
...fee in this case was a charge of $20. Swart also contends that this case is controlled by our prior holding in State ex rel. Swart v. Stucky (1975), 167 Mont. 171, 536 P.2d 762. In that case, we approved the issuance of a writ of mandate against a county clerk and recorder who had refused t......