Stutsman County v. State Historical Soc. of North Dakota, 10963

• Decision Date: 11 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 10963,10963
• Citation: 371 N.W.2d 321
• Parties: COUNTY OF STUTSMAN, Appellee, v. STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH DAKOTA and State Historical Board, Appellants. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 321

371 N.W.2d 321

COUNTY OF STUTSMAN, Appellee, v. STATE HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF NORTH DAKOTA and State

Historical Board, Appellants.

Civ. No. 10963.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

July 11, 1985.

Charles J. Gilje, State's Atty., Jamestown, for appellee.

Michael Geiermann, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for appellants.

MESCHKE, Justice.

The State Historical Society of North Dakota (Historical Society) and the State Historical Board (Board) appeal from a district court judgment which reversed the Board's decision to list the 1883 Stutsman County Courthouse (Courthouse) in Jamestown North Dakota, on the State Historical Sites Registry (Registry).

Whenever a site is placed on the Registry, the state's departments and agencies, and its political subdivisions, are prohibited from altering the physical features or historic character of the site without first obtaining approval from the superintendent of the Board. Section 55-10-08(2), N.D.C.C.

The Stutsman County Courthouse, built in 1883, is the oldest existing courthouse in the State. As determined by the Board, it has "great physical integrity" while retaining "most of its original physical features." The Board's findings describe it as "a distinct illustration of the Gothic revival style of architecture," as "one of the best examples of that style among the State's buildings," and as distinctly illustrating "changes in building construction technology" by its "use of pressed metal throughout its interior." The Board's findings identify that it was designed by Henry C. Koch, a "prominent and prolific Milwaukee architect," and is believed to be "North Dakota's sole known example of work" by him. It is "associated with Anton Klaus an early Jamestown settler," who donated the land and purchased the plans for the Courthouse. The findings are not disputed; it is the Board's conclusion that it had "the authority by virtue of Section 55-10-02(4), N.D.C.C., to designate a property to be listed in the State Historic Sites Registry," which is challenged.

On August 26, 1983, the Courthouse and sheriff's residence and jail were nominated for listing on the Registry. ¹ The Board heard the nomination at its quarterly meeting on November 4, 1983, following a public hearing at Jamestown. At that meeting, a motion carried to place the Courthouse on the Registry.

The Board then discussed a time frame for Project 83, a nonprofit organization, to raise money to preserve and restore the Courthouse. A motion carried to allow Project 83 three years to raise the necessary funds. Depending upon progress made after that time, the Board indicated it would consider either an extension of time for Project 83 to continue its efforts or removal of the Courthouse from the Registry. These discussions, as reflected in the minutes, also indicated an awareness that existing powers and procedures of the Board, unless changed, did not provide a method for removing the listing from the Registry, if Project 83 failed to raise sufficient funds for adequate preservation of the Courthouse.

The Board informed the Stutsman County Commission by certified letter on November 25, 1983, that it had listed the Courthouse on the Registry as a state historical site. On December 22, 1983, Stutsman County filed a notice of appeal from the "order" of the Board dated November 25, 1983. Although there were several specifications of error raised in the notice of appeal, Stutsman County emphasized in its brief to this Court that the principal reason for the appeal was because there "was no rule to allow for the State Historical Board to remove from the State Historical Sites Registry a given property once it was placed on that registry unless it was substantially lost or destroyed." ²

The Board again discussed placement of the Courthouse on the Registry at its February 3, 1984 quarterly meeting. The discussion dealt with financial implications of placing the Courthouse on the Registry as well as whether it would be legally possible to remove it from the Registry at a future date. The Board ratified its earlier action and issued formal findings of fact, conclusions of law, and an order. Stutsman County filed a petition for rehearing which was denied by the Board at its May 4, 1984 meeting, and the County appealed to the district court.

The district court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board had no authority to place the Courthouse on the Registry under Section 55-10-02(4), N.D.C.C., which provides as follows:

"4. The 'state historic sites registry' shall be a listing of sites designated by the state historical board of the state historical society as possessing historical value, as defined in this section, and including but not limited to sites enumerated in this chapter. This registry shall be published and updated annually and distributed in accordance with state law dealing with publications." ³

The district court concluded that because "the legislature inexplicably failed to set forth in the section a definition of the words 'historical value'," it had "by that omission, deprived the state historical board of authority to add new sites to the Registry." A judgment reversing the Board's decision was entered on February 14, 1985.

On April 3, 1985, the Stutsman County commission passed a resolution to demolish the Courthouse. Thereafter, the State filed a notice of appeal to this Court and a motion for stay of judgment which was denied by the district court. This Court entered an order staying the judgment pending a hearing and decision on the merits.

Whenever an administrative agency decision is appealed to a district court and then to this Court, we review the decision of the agency and look to the record compiled before the agency. Garner Public School District No. 10 v. Golden Valley County Committee, 334 N.W.2d 665 (N.D.1983). Our review is governed by Section 28-32-19, N.D.C.C. ⁴ The factual basis of an administrative agency decision is reviewed in a limited manner to determine whether or not (1) the findings of fact are supported by a preponderance of evidence, (2) the conclusions of law are sustained by the findings of fact, and (3) the agency decision is supported by the conclusions of law. Asbridge v. North Dakota State Highway Com'r, 291 N.W.2d 739 (N.D.1980). In addition to reviewing the factual basis for the agency's decision, we also consider whether the decision violates the appellant's constitutional rights and is in accordance with the law. Garner Public School District No. 10, supra.

The Board contends that the district court erred in determining that the Board did not have the authority to place sites on the Registry because "historical value" is not further defined as contemplated by Section 55-10-02(4), N.D.C.C. The Board asserts that if the district court's decision were followed there would be no entity in North Dakota "which will be able to preserve historic sites and antiquities for the inspiration and use of the people ...," as intended by the Legislature.

Our duty is to ascertain the intent of the Legislature. E.g., Rheaume v. State, 339 N.W.2d 90 (N.D.1983). A statute must be considered as a whole to determine the intent of the Legislature. E.g., In Interest of Nyflot, 340 N.W.2d 178 (N.D.1983). The Legislature's intent must be sought initially from the statutory language. E.g., Morton County v. Henke, 308 N.W.2d 372 (N.D.1981). If the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the letter of the statute cannot be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit because the legislative intent is presumed clear from the face of the statute. Section 1-02-05, N.D.C.C.; In Interest of B.L., 301 N.W.2d 387 (N.D.1981). However, if the language of a statute is ambiguous or of doubtful meaning or if adherence to the strict letter of the statute would lead to an absurd or ludicrous result, the court may resort to extrinsic aids to interpret the statute. Morton County v. Henke, supra; In Interest of B.L., supra. Statutes must be construed to avoid absurd and ludicrous results, e.g., In Interest of B.L., supra. All sections of a statute must be construed to have meaning because the law neither does nor requires idle acts. Section 31-11-05(23), N.D.C.C.; State v. Nordquist, 309 N.W.2d 109 (N.D.1981). In short, we are guided by the common-sense principle that a statute is to be read to give effect to each of its provisions, whenever fairly possible.

Although the Legislature stated in Section 55-10-02(4), N.D.C.C., that "historical value" was to be further "defined" in that section, the Legislature did not go on to define that term. If the Board does not have authority to place sites on the Registry because of the omission of further definition of "historical value," Section 55-10-02(4), N.D.C.C., would be entirely surplusage and would have no effectiveness. We believe that such a construction would be significantly inconsistent with applicable rules of statutory construction. It is better that the dangling phrase, "as defined in this section," be construed as surplusage, than to construe the entire section as surplusage, and thus render it ineffective. Accordingly, we reject the district court's interpretation of the statute and will look to extrinsic aids to ascertain the Legislature's intent.

Section 1-02-39, N.D.C.C., sets forth these extrinsic aids:

"If a statute is ambiguous, the court, in determining the intention of the legislation, may consider among other matters:

1. The object sought to be attained.

2. The circumstances under which the statute was enacted.

3. The legislative history.

4. The common law or former statutory provisions, including laws upon the same or similar subjects.

5. The consequences of a particular construction.

6. The administrative construction of the statute.

7. The preamble."

Section 55-10-01, N.D.C.C., ⁵ declares that the object of Chapter 55-10, N.D.C.C., is to preserve historic sites for the benefit of the people...