No. 13022
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A
OTN
197 5
THE M N A A P W R COMPANY, a
OTN O E
Montana C o r p o r a t i o n ,
P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,
-vs -
SAMUEL WOLFE, LYNN WOLFE e t a l . ,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e F o u r t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Edward T. D u s s a u l t , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record:
For A p p e l l a n t :
G a r l i n g t o n , Lohn and Robinson, Missoula, Montana
James C . G a r l i n g t o n a r g u e d , Missoula, Montana
For Respondents:
McGarvey and Moore, K a l i s p e l l , Montana
Dale McGarvey a r g u e d , K a l i s p e l l , Montana
Goldman, McChesney and Eck, M i s s o u l a , Montana
Lawrence Eck a r g u e d , M i s s o u l a , Montana
Submitted: December 9 , 1975
Decided : FFB .r.p
'LLQ-' ~
M r . J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court.
I n t h i s eminent domain proceeding p l a i n t i f f Montana
Power Company a p p e a l s t h e judgment e n t e r e d on a j u r y ' s award of
compensation f o r a s t r i p of d e f e n d a n t ' s l a n d condemned a s an
easement f o r p l a i n t i f f ' s 161-KV power t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e . We
a f f i r m t h e judgment.
The easement condemned i s a s t r i p of land 80 f e e t wide,
s t r e t c h i n g 11,167 f e e t along t h e upper bench p o r t i o n of d e f e n d a n t ' s
5200 a c r e ranch l o c a t e d on t h e e a s t s i d e of t h e B i t t e r r o o t v a l l e y ,
e a s t of S t e v e n s v i l l e i n R a v a l l i County. This s t r i p c o n t a i n s an
a r e a o f 20.5 a c r e s . The remainder of d e f e n d a n t ' s p r o p e r t y sub-
j e c t t o d e p r e c i a t i o n i n v a l u e r e s u l t i n g from t h i s t a k i n g con-
s t i t u t e s 319.5 a c r e s . Eleven p o l e s t r u c t u r e s of t h e p l a i n t i f f
u t i l i t y ' s t r a n s m i s s i o n l i n e between i t s Missoula No. 4 s u b s t a t i o n
and Hamilton Heights occupy t h e easement. The pole s t r u c t u r e s a r e
approximately 58 f e e t t a l l . There a r e 9 double pole s t r u c t u r e s
w i t h 2 t r i p l e p o l e s t r u c t u r e s i n t h i s easement. The s t r u c t u r e s
a r e v i s i b l e f o r a d i s t a n c e of about 5 m i l e s , and placed on k n o l l s
o r promontories i n d e f e n d a n t ' s timbered p a s t u r e and on a small
p o r t i o n of h i s c u l t i v a t e d land.
~ e f e n d a n t ' sranch a s a whole contained a small amount of
i r r i g a t e d hay and p a s t u r e l a n d , some d r y land crop a c r e a g e , and
a l a r g e amount of d r y l a n d g r a z i n g , b o t h open and timbered.
P l a i n t i f f u t i l i t y commenced t h e s e eminent domain proceedings
i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t o f t h e f o u r t h j u d i c i a l d i s t r i c t pursuant t o
t h e p r o v i s i o n s of Chapter 99, T i t l e 9 3 , R.C.M. 1947. Both p a r t i e s
appealed t h e commissioners' award f o r t h e easement and d e p r e c i a t i o n
i n v a l u e o f t h e remainder t o t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t .
Following a j u r y t r i a l b e f o r e Hon. Edward Dussault,
d i s t r i c t judge, a judgment of $15,382.50 f o r t h e v a l u e of t h e 20.5
a c r e easement and $23,961.75 f o r d e p r e c i a t i o n i n s v a l u e t o t h e
319.5 a c r e remainder was e n t e r e d f o r defendant, pursuant t o t h e
verdict .
p l a i n t i f f ' s motion f o r a new t r i a l was denied by t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t and t h i s a p p e a l i s taken from t h e judgment and t h e
o r d e r denying a new t r i a l .
Two i s s u e s a r e p r e s e n t e d on a p p e a l :
1. Whether s a l e s comparable i n s i z e , b u t n o t i n shape,
t o t h e land taken should have been admitted i n t o evidence?
2. Whether t h e j u r y committed r e v e r s i b l e e r r o r by n o t
following c o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 when i t awarded $750 p e r a c r e
f o r t h e easement?
F i r s t , c o n s i d e r i n g p l a i n t i f f ' s o b j e c t i o n t o t h e evidence
of comparable s a l e s , we n o t e t h i s Court h a s approved t h e u s e of
such evidence i n eminent domain proceedings. S t a t e Highway
Commission v. Jacobs, 150 Mont. 322, 328, 435 P.2d 274; S t a t e Highway
Commi-ssion v. Tubbs, 147 Mont. 296, 303, 411 P.2d 739. Further,
when t h e v a l u e of a n o t h e r p i e c e of p r o p e r t y i s t e s t i f i e d t o f o r
t h e purpose o f showing t h e b a s i s f o r an e x p e r t ' s o p i n i o n , a s was
done h e r e , t h e requirement of s i m i l a r i t y i s n o t so s t r i c t . State
Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra.
E s s e n t i a l l y p l a i n t i f f argues t h a t t h e d i f f e r e n c e s between
t h e 80 f o o t easement and t h e r e s i d e n t i a l t r a c t s a l e s t e s t i f i e d t o
by d e f e n d a n t ' s e x p e r t a r e so g r e a t a s t o make t h e s a l e s n o t j u d i c i a l l y
comparable. Yet i t i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a p p e l l a t e review o f
comparable s a l e evidence admitted by t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s l i m i t e d .
5 Nichols on Eminent Domain, $21.31, pp. 21-54 t o 21-59, s t a t e s :
" S i m i l a r i t y does n o t mean i d e n t i c a l , b u t having a
resemblance. Obviously, no two p r o p e r t i e s can be
e x a c t l y a l i k e , and no g e n e r a l r u l e can be l a i d down
r e g a r d i n g t h e degree of s i m i l a r i t y t h a t must e x i s t
t o make such evidence a d m i s s i b l e . I t must n e c e s s a r i l y
v a r y w i t h t h e circumstances of each p a r t i c u l a r c a s e .
Whether t h e p r o p e r t i e s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s i m i l a r t o have
some b e a r i n g on t h e v a l u e under c o n s i d e r a t i o n , and t o be
of any a i d t o t h e j u r y , must n e c e s s a r i l y r e s t l a r g e l y
i n t h e sound d i s c r e t i o n of t h e t r i a l c o u r t , which w i l l
n o t b e i n t e r f e r e d w i t h u n l e s s abused. The e x a c t l i m i t s ,
e i t h e r of s i m i l a r i t y o r d i f f e r e n c e , o r o f n e a r n e s s
o r remoteness i n p o i n t of time, i s d i f f i c u l t , i f
n o t impossible, t o p r e s c r i b e by any a r b i t r a r y r u l e ,
b u t must t o a l a r g e e x t e n t depend on t h e l o c a t i o n and
t h e c h a r a c t e r of t h e p r o p e r t y and t h e circumstances
of t h e c a s e . It i s t o be considered w i t h r e f e r e n c e
t o t h e l i g h t thrown on t h e i s s u e , and n o t a s a mere
method of r a i s i n g a l e g a l puzzle."
The background o f one Roy ~ o d e n b e r g e r ' s testimony on
comparable s a l e s and h i s opinion on v a l u e can b e b r i e f l y summarized.
The a r e a of t h e Wolfe ranch on Burnt Fork Creek, about e i g h t miles
o u t of S t e v e n s v i l l e had, i n 1972, an a t t r a c t i o n f o r r u r a l home-
sites. I t s h i g h e s t and b e s t use was f o r t h a t purpose. Rodenberger
determined t h a t c e r t a i n s a l e s of s m a l l homesite t r a c t s were of
v a l u e i n determining t h e u l t i m a t e v a l u e o f t h e land taken h e r e
and t h e damage t o t h e remainder. I n t h i s connection he was c a r e -
f u l l y examined, both on d i r e c t and c r o s s . A synopsis of h i s
t h i n k i n g i s probably b e s t expressed i n t h i s q u e s t i o n and answer
on cross-examination:
"Q. And your t h e o r y was t h a t i f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n s
t h a t a r e i n your l i s t number one were i n d i c a t i v e
o f a twenty a c r e s a l e , they would be i n d i c a t i v e of
t h e v a l u e of t h e land w i t h i n t h e easement?
"A. Yes, t h e y would be i n d i c a t i v e . However, t h e l a n d s
t h a t a r e i n t h e s e s a l e s a r e r e g u l a r t r a c t s of l a n d i n a
planned manner, and t h e r e i s no way t o a c t u a l l y compare
a r e g u l a r planned t r a c t of land t h a t may be oblong o r
square o r even t r i a n g u l a r on t h e edge of a ranch, t o an
e i g h t y f o o t ribbon two m i l e s through t h e c e n t e r of t h e
ranch. So, d u r i n g t h e whole time of comparison I t r i e d
t o make t h e s e t r a c t s r e g u l a r i n t h i s ranch t a k i n g , and
t h e only way you can do i t i s t a k e t h e f o r t y - a c r e t r a c t s
and say: A l l r i g h t , what a r e t h e y doing t o t h i s t r a c t ?
They a r e t a k i n g two and a t h i r d a c r e s out of t h i s t r a c t ,
and i t ' s kind o f on t h e edge. The n e x t f o r t y - a c r e t r a c t
t h e y might b e going r i g h t through t h e middle of i t a s
t h a t o v e r l a y shows. Although i t i s i n d i c a t i v e of t h e
market, i t i s n ' t a t r u e comparis6n because, I t h i n k , t h e
f a c t t h a t i t i s s p l i t t i n g a p i e c e of p r o p e r t y i n a e i g h t y -
f o o t ribbon two m i l e s long, which i s d e f i n i t e l y an i r r e g u l a r
t y p e shape t r a c t , t h e s e comparisbns a r e c o n s e r v a t i v e on
t h e market on t h a t type of a t r a c t . 1 1
P l a i n t i f f was t a k i n g , b e s i d e s t h e easement, t h e u s e of
e x i s t i n g roadways and a c c e s s by "reasonable means". It was c l e a r
t h a t t h e q u a l i t y of t h e land taken, t h e q u a n t i t y , and t h e a c c e s s
easement, were being considered and t h a t because of a l l t h e circum-
s t a n c e s t h e easement v a l u e was s u b s t a n t i a l l y t h e same a s t h e f e e
value, except for the grazing left. Mr. Rodenberger considered
all of these matters.
However, plaintiff condemnor contends that the requisite
elements of comparability of land values do not exist where a
20 acre fee homesite is likened to an easement strip 80 feet
wide, and two miles long. That area alone cannot be a controlling
consideration. We agree, but as shown by the foregoing quote of
the appraiser Rodenberger, he did not literally do this.
We cannot conclude that the sales introduced as a basis
for the opinion of defendant's expert amounted to an abuse of
discretion by the district court. These recent sales involved tracts
of similar sizes and did shed some light on the value of defendant's
land for residential development. Differences between these tracts
and the easement were thoroughly developed on both direct and
cross-examination. Given this, it was for the jury to determine
the weight to be given the comparable sales and the expert's
appraisal. United States v. 84.4 Acres of Land, Etc., 348 F.2d 117,
119; Illnois Building Authority v. Dembinsky, 101 I11.App.2d 59,
242 N.E.2d 67,69; Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City v. Mitsui
Investment Inc., (Utah 1974), 522 P.2d 1370, 1373. We find no
error.
The second issue raised on appeal is based on district
court's Instruction No. 19, which reads:
"YOU are instructed that the lands being valued in
this case for the purpose of determining just compen-
sation may not be valued at one amount within the
area of the easement and at a different amount in
other similar areas of the same tract. Fhere the
lands are all in one tract, they must be considered
to ether, and their fair market value determined
& h i i i g l y . " (Emphasis supplied. )
Plaintiff submits that the jury's award of $15,382.50 or
$750 per acre for the 20.5 acre easement is contrary to this
instruction. It is contended that since the highest value placed
on the remainder was $500 per acre, application of this instruc-
tion required the jury to award not greater than $500 per acre for
t h e easement taken. I n o t h e r words, p l a i n t i f f contends t h a t
evidence of a lower v a l u e f o r t h e remainder c o n t r o l s t h e v a l u e
of t h e easement.
The j u r y h e r e r e t u r n e d by t h e v e r d i c t two s e p a r a t e v a l u e s ,
$15,382.50 f o r t h e easement taken; and $23,961.75 f o r damages t o
t h e remainder. The remainder was approximately 320 a c r e s .
Plaintiff then t o r e a c h i t s t h e s i s t h a t I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 was
v i o l a t e d , argues s i n c e owner's w i t n e s s Rodenberger t e s t i f i e d t h a t
t h e land o u t s i d e t h e c o r r i d o r of t h e easement had a v a l u e of $300
p e r a c r e ; and t h e condemnor's w i t n e s s G l a s s e r t e s t i f i e d t h a t $500.
p e r a c r e was a f a i r f i g u r e , t h a t t h e r e f o r e , under t h e i n s t r u c t i o n
l i t e r a l l y r e a d , t h e r e was only evidence t o support a f i g u r e of a
maximum of $500 p e r a c r e r a t h e r than $750 p e r a c r e a s found by t h e
jury. Rodenberger had t e s t i f i e d t o a f i g u r e of $1200 p e r a c r e f o r
t h e land taken. W r e a l i z e t h a t t o f o l l o w t h e argument and l o g i c
e
o f t h e condemnor i s d i f f i c u l t . C o u r t ' s I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 cannot
b e r e a d out of c o n t e x t i n a l i t e r a l manner. It must b e r e a d and
understood i n t h e l i g h t of t h e c a s e .
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19 commands only t h a t t h e l a n d s be
II
considered t o g e t h e r and t h e i r f a i r market v a l u e determined
II
accordingly. I t does n o t r e q u i r e a lower a p p r a i s a l f o r one a r e a
of a t r a c t t o c o n t r o l a h i g h e r a p p r a i s a l f o r o t h e r a r e a s of t h e
same t r a c t . The i n s t r u c t i o n simply r e q u i r e s t h e j u r y t o a r r i v e
a t one v a l u e f o r t h e l a n d s i n t h e t r a c t .
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 1 5 , s t a t e s :
You a r e i n s t r u c t e d t h a t j u s t compensation should
II
be a r r i v e d a t by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e following:
"1. The v a l u e of t h e p r o p e r t y sought t o be
condemned.
"2. I f t h e p r o p e r t y sought t o be condemned c o r -
s t i t u t e s only a p a r t of a l a r g e r p a r c e l , the. depre-
c i a t i o n i n v a l u e , i f any, which w i l l a c c r u e t o t h e
p o r t i o n n o t sought t o be condemned, by reason of i t s
severance from t h e p o r t i o n sought t o be condemned,
and t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of t h e improvements i n t h e manner
proposed by t h e P l a i n t i f f . (Emphasis s u p p l i e d ) .
C l e a r l y t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n contemplates j u r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n
of evidence of t h e v a l u e of t h e easement a s w e l l a s damage t o t h e
remainder. E a r l i e r i n t h i s opinion we approved evidence of com-
p a r a b l e s a l e s upon which an e x p e r t ' s a p p r a i s a l of $1200 p e r a c r e
f o r t h e easement taken was based. It i s not disputed t h a t appraisals
of t h e v a l u e of t h e remainder ranged from $300 t o $500 p e r a c r e .
Thus c o n s i d e r i n g t h e l a n d s t o g e t h e r a s r e q u i r e d by t h e c o u r t ' s
I n s t r u c t i o n No. 19, t h e j u r y had a p e r m i s s i b l e range of v a l u e s
from $300 t o $1200 p e r a c r e from which i t could determine i t s award
of j u s t compensation.
Presented w i t h t h i s range o f v a l u e s and following t h e
i n s t r u c t i o n o f t h e c o u r t , t h e j u r y s e l e c t e d t h e mean v a l u e of
$750 p e r a c r e a s t h e b a s i s of i t s award. This value f o r t h e
easement i s obviously w i t h i n t h e evidence a v a i l a b l e t o t h e j u r y
and t h u s n o t obviously and palpably o u t of p r o p o r t i o n t o j u s t
compensation r e q u i r i n g i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h t h e f i n d i n g s o f t h e j u r y
by t h i s Court. S t a t e Highway Commission v. Jacobs, supra.
Finding no p r e j u d i c i a l e r r o r i n admission and u s e of
comparable s a l e s d a t a and m i s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e c o u r t ' s i n s t r u c -
t i o n s , t h e judgment i s a f f i r m e d .
W Concur:
e f