No. 14549
IN THE SUPRE2-B COURT O THE STA!I'E O IvDNI'ANA
F F
1979
Plaintiff and Appllant ,
Defendant and Respondent.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourteenth Judicial District,
Honorable Nat Allen, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Leaphart Law Firm, Helena, Mxtana
For Respondent:
-re, Rice, O'Connell & Refling, Bozeman, mntana
Su3snitted on briefs: March 29, 1979
Decided: 5 1979
Filed: 'MFS" -g ,.)?.j
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
P l a i n t i f f Holmstrom Land Company (Holmstrom) a p p e a l s
from a judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F o u r t e e n t h J u d i c i a l
D i s t r i c t , Meagher County, d a t e d May 1 6 and J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 8 , i n
f a v o r o f W i l l i a m R. H u n t e r .
T h i s a p p e a l i n v o l v e s a d i s p u t e o v e r c h a r g e s made by t h e
w a t e r commissioner f o r d i s p e n s i n g w a t e r s i n t h e Newlan Creek
Water D i s t r i c t . On O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ,
Fourteenth J u d i c i a l District, i n a proceeding concerning
d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e w a t e r s o f Newlan C r e e k , i s s u e d a n o r d e r
g i v i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o t h e w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n e r s who had been
a p p o i n t e d t o a d m i n i s t e r t h e w a t e r s o f Newlan C r e e k . The
h e a r i n g r e s u l t i n g i n t h e o r d e r was h e l d on c o m p l a i n t of
R o b e r t J. W e i t z , p r e s i d e n t o f Holmstrom. Holmstrom h a s
d e c r e e d w a t e r r i g h t s i n b o t h Sheep Creek and Newlan Creek
l o c a t e d i n Meagher County. I t u s e s Newlan Creek a s a con-
d u i t f o r t h e t r a n s f e r o f a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1000 i n c h e s of Sheep
Creek w a t e r t o i t s h e a d g a t e s and d i t c h e s .
The c o u r t o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1 9 7 6 , c o n t a i n s t h e
f o l l o w i n g d i r e c t i o n s t o t h e commissioner:
"Water Commissioner F u l l e r was t o l d by t h e
C o u r t t o k e e p t r a c k o f w a t e r from Sheep Creek
coming i n t o Newlan C r e e k , and a s s e s s Holmstrom
Land Company f o r Sheep Creek Water d i s t r i b u t e d
t h r o u g h Newlan C r e e k , i f h e u s e s any o f h i s
t i m e i n d i s p e n s i n g i t . Holmstrom Land Company
t o g e t t h e amount o f w a t e r from Sheep Creek
t h e y p u t i n t o Newlan C r e e k , less a b o u t 1 0 p e r -
c e n t f o r seepage, e t c . "
D e f e n d a n t H u n t e r was a p p o i n t e d w a t e r commissioner on
June 7 , 1977, t o c a r r y o u t t h e O c t o b e r o r d e r .
I n 1977 Holmstrom was b i l l e d by d e f e n d a n t on t h e b a s i s
o f b o t h Newlan Creek and Sheep Creek w a t e r s . Holmstrom
r e f u s e d t o pay, and d e f e n d a n t p a d l o c k e d Holmstrom's h e a d g a t e
i n an attempt t o collect. Holmstrom t h e n b r o u g h t t h i s
action. H u n t e r d e f e n d e d on t h e g r o u n d s h e was o n l y f o l -
l o w i n g t h e c o u r t ' s o r d e r ; t h a t Holmstrom was n o t p u r s u i n g
t h e p r o p e r p r o c e d u r a l remedy; and t h a t Holmstrom was t r y i n g
t o c o l l a t e r a l l y a t t a c k t h e October 1 8 , 1976, o r d e r even
t h o u g h i t had n o t a p p e a l e d t h a t o r d e r .
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found t h a t H u n t e r was a c t i n g p u r -
s u a n t t o i t s o r d e r , t h a t t h e c h a r g e s were r e a s o n a b l e , and
t h a t i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r H u n t e r t o r e t a i n c o u n s e l . The
c o u r t t h e n c o n c l u d e d t h a t s e c t i o n s 89-1012 and 89-1013,
R.C.M. 1 9 4 7 , now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 and 85-5-205 MCA, con-
s t i t u t e d t h e s o l e remedy f o r o n e who o b j e c t s t o t h e c h a r g e s
o f a w a t e r commissioner a p p o i n t e d by c o u r t o r d e r . The c o u r t
f u r t h e r concluded t h i s s u i t c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k
upon i t s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976. The c o u r t t h e n o r d e r e d
judgment f o r H u n t e r and o r d e r e d Holmstrom t o pay t h e whole
sum owing t o H u n t e r . After an evidentiary hearing t h e court
a l s o o r d e r e d , on J u l y 1 9 , 1 9 7 8 , t h a t Holmstrom pay H u n t e r
$750 i n a t t o r n e y f e e s .
A l t h o u g h Holmstrom l i s t s e i g h t i s s u e s on a p p e a l , w e
d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e r e s o l u t i o n of t h e two f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s
w i l l dispose of t h i s appeal:
1. Whether t h e a t t e m p t t o s e c u r e t h e r e l i e f s e t f o r t h
i n t h e c o m p l a i n t o f Holmstrom c o n s t i t u t e d a c o l l a t e r a l
a t t a c k upon t h e c o u r t o r d e r d a t e d O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976?
2. Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was c o r r e c t i n o r d e r i n g
Holmstrom t o pay a t t o r n e y f e e s t o H u n t e r ?
The p r a y e r t o Holmstrom's c o m p l a i n t r e q u e s t s i n m a j o r
p a r t t h a t " t h e a c c o u n t i n g o f t h e Commissioner b e r e c a l c u -
l a t e d i n accordance w i t h t h e u s e s of t h e w a t e r s of ~ e w l a n
C r e e k , e x c l u s i v e o f any _n d a l l u s e s - f w a t e r s - Sheep
- a _ _ o of
Creek . . ." (Emphasis a d d e d . )
That t h i s requested r e l i e f i s an attempt t o negate t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r o f O c t o b e r 1 8 , 1976, s p e c i f i c a l l y
d i r e c t i n g t h e w a t e r commissioner t o k e e p t r a c k of w a t e r
coming i n t o Newlan Creek from Sheep Creek a n d t o a s s e s s
Holmstrom f o r any t i m e u s e d i n d i s p e n s i n g Sheep Creek w a t e r ,
i s obvious. Such a n a t t e m p t c l e a r l y c o n s t i t u t e s a c o l l a t e r a l
a t t a c k on t h e e a r l i e r o r d e r .
The g e n e r a l r u l e i n c i v i l l i t i g a t i o n i s w e l l e x p r e s s e d
i n t h e following language:
"'By " c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k " i s meant " e v e r y p r o -
c e e d i n g i n which t h e i n t e g r i t y o f a judgment i s
c h a l l e n g e d , e x c e p t t h o s e made i n t h e a c t i o n
w h e r e i n t h e judgment i s r e n d e r e d o r by a p p e a l ,
a n d e x c e p t s u i t s b r o u g h t t o o b t a i n d e c r e e s de-
c l a r i n g judgments t o b e v o i d - i n i t i o . "
ab .. .'
[Citations omitted. 1
" I t h a s been w e l l - s e t t l e d i n t h i s s t a t e t h a t a
c o u r t w i l l o v e r t u r n a judgment on c o l l a t e r a l a t -
t a c k o n l y i f t h e judgment i s v o i d on i t s f a c e ,
a n d i t a p p e a r s a f f i r m a t i v e l y from t h e judgment
r o l l t h a t t h e c o u r t d i d n o t have j u r i s d i c t i o n o r
committed a n a c t i n e x c e s s o f i t s j u r i s d i c t i o n . "
E s t a t e o f Hofmann ( 1 9 5 7 ) , 132 Mont. 387, 395,
318 P.2d 230, 236.
I t t h u s becomes t h e d u t y of t h i s C o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e
w h e t h e r t h e i n i t i a l o r d e r i s v o i d on i t s f a c e o r beyond t h e
powers o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t . W e conclude it i s not.
S e c t i o n 89-891.1, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-411
MCA, p r o v i d e s :
"Water a p p r o p r i a t e d u n d e r a n e x i s t i n g r i g h t o r
p u r s u a n t t o t h i s a c t may b e t u r n e d i n t o t h e
n a t u r a l c h a n n e l o f a n o t h e r s t r e a m , o r from a
r e s e r v o i r i n t o t h e n a t u r a l c h a n n e l , and w i t h -
drawn o r d i v e r t e d a t a p o i n t downstream f o r
b e n e f i c i a l u s e , b u t t h e w a t e r s of t h a t stream
may n o t t h e r e b y be d i m i n i s h e d i n q u a n t i t y o r
d e t e r i o r a t e d i n q u a l i t y t o t h e d e t r i m e n t of a
p r i o r appropriator."
Thus, i t i s incumbent upon t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , a s t h e e n t i t y
r e s p o n s i b l e f o r s u p e r v i s i n g t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f w a t e r among
a l l a p p r o p r i a t o r s a n d f o r s u p e r v i s i n g a l l w a t e r commis-
s i o n e r s , s e c t i o n 89-896, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-2-406
MCA, t o i n s u r e t h a t a p p r o p r i a t o r s of Newlan Creek w a t e r w e r e
n o t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d by Holmstrom's u s e of Newlan Creek a s
a c o n d u i t f o r i t s Sheep Creek w a t e r s . A l e g i t i m a t e and
l o g i c a l way t o do t h i s i s t o r e q u i r e t h e w a t e r commissioners
t o measure t h e f l o w o f Sheep Creek w a t e r i n t o Newlan Creek
i n d i s p e n s i n g t h e w a t e r s a c c o r d i n g t o t h e d e c r e e d r i g h t s of
the parties. Water commissioner H u n t e r , a l t h o u g h a p p o i n t e d
a f t e r t h e October 1976 o r d e r , i s n e v e r t h e l e s s bound by i t .
Luppold v . L e w i s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , - Mont . , 563 P.2d 538, 542,
34 St.Rep. 227, 231. Holmstrom, a s t h e h o l d e r of t h e de-
c r e e d r i g h t s , must pay f o r t h e p r o p o r t i o n a t e c o s t s of t h e
c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s f e e s and compensation. S e c t i o n 89-1001(5),
R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 85-5-101(4) MCA.
I f Holmstrom wanted t o c h a l l e n g e t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
o r d e r of October 1 8 , 1976, as i t r e l a t e d t o a s s e s s m e n t s of
h i s Sheep Creek w a t e r , t h e p r o p e r l e g a l p r o c e d u r e would have
been a n a p p e a l w i t h i n t h e p r o p e r t i m e . Rules l ( a ) and 5 ,
M.R.App.Civ.P. Holmstrom d i d n o t a p p e a l . The c u r r e n t
c o l l a t e r a l a t t a c k i s n o t a p e r m i s s i b l e means by which t o
make t h i s c h a l l e n g e . Nor d o e s i t a p p e a r , i n f a c t , t h a t t h e
order i s challengeable.
C o n v e r s e l y , i f Holmstrom wanted t o c h a l l e n g e t h e appor-
t i o n m e n t of f e e s and e x p e n s e s by t h e w a t e r commissioner, i t
s h o u l d have f o l l o w e d t h e p r o c e d u r e s e t f o r t h i n s e c t i o n s 89-
1012 and 89-1013, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n s 85-5-204 and 85-
5-205 MCA. T h i s i t a l s o f a i l e d t o do. Therefore, t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r of October 1 8 , 1976, and t h e w a t e r
c o m m i s s i o n e r ' s a s s e s s m e n t f i l e d i n J u l y 1977 a r e f i n a l and
binding. On t h i s f i r s t i s s u e , t h e judgment of t h e ~ i s t r i c t
Court i s affirmed.
A s t o t h e award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s t o H u n t e r , the Dis-
t r i c t C o u r t a f t e r r e c e i v i n g e v i d e n c e i n s u p p o r t o f a n award
f o r $959, awarded f e e s i n t h e amount o f $750. Although
t h e r e i s no s t a t u t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e s e f e e s , t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t found i t was n e c e s s a r y f o r H u n t e r t o r e t a i n c o u n s e l i n
t h i s m a t t e r and c o n c l u d e d t h a t i t had t h e power, as a c o u r t
o f e q u i t y , t o o r d e r Holmstrom t o pay H u n t e r ' s r e a s o n a b l e
attorney fees. W e agree.
T h i s s u i t was b r o u g h t a g a i n s t H u n t e r p e r s o n a l l y f o r
a c t s undertaken i n h i s capacity a s a duly appointed water
commissioner a c t i n g p u r s u a n t t o a l a w f u l c o u r t o r d e r . Were
w a t e r commissioners r e q u i r e d t o defend o u t of t h e i r p e r s o n a l
f u n d s a g a i n s t s u i t s b r o u g h t a g a i n s t them f o r t h e i r o f f i c i a l
a c t s , no o n e would b e w i l l i n g t o s e r v e a s w a t e r c o m m i s s i o n e r .
Where t h e s u i t i s w i t h o u t m e r i t , a s i n t h i s c a s e , i t i s o n l y
p r o p e r t h a t t h e c o s t s s h o u l d b e b o r n e by t h e w a t e r u s e r
i n s t i t u t i n g the action.
C o u r t s o f e q u i t y h a v e t h e i n h e r e n t power t o g r a n t t h e
r e l i e f t h a t justice requires. T i f f a n y v . Uhde ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 123
Mont. 507, 512-13, 216 P.2d 375, 378. I n a recent case,
t h i s Court s t a t e d :
"The c o u r t a l s o r e s e r v e s t h e power t o g r a n t com-
p l e t e r e l i e f u n d e r i t s e q u i t y power. This i s
meant t o e s t a b l i s h no s r e c e d e n t , b u t m u s t b e
d e t e r m i n e d on a c a s e by c a s e b a s i s .
" I f e q u i t y i s t o b e done i n a s i t u a t i o n s u c h a s
t h i s , t h e a t t o r n e y f e e must b e s u s t a i n e d . P l a i n -
t i f f Anderson s o u g h t t o b r i n g d e f e n d a n t Eggan
i n t o t h e l a w s u i t when s h e had a s s e r t e d no c l a i m
a g a i n s t him and had no i n t e n t i o n o f d o i n g s o .
For t h i s reason s h e submitted a motion t o d i s m i s s
which was g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . Plaintiff
Anderson f o r c e d h e r t o s e c u r e t h e s e r v i c e s o f a n
a t t o r n e y t o examine t h e c a s e a n d s u b m i t a m o t i o n
t o d i s m i s s and t h r o u g h no f a u l t o n h e r p a r t t o
i n c u r a t t o r n e y f e e s and c o s t s . I f defendant
Eggan i s d i s m i s s e d from t h e c a s e a n d n o t awarded
a t t o r n e y f e e s , s h e w i l l n o t b e made whole o r re-
t u r n e d t o t h e same p o s i t i o n as b e f o r e p l a i n t i f f
Anderson a t t e m p t e d t o b r i n g h e r i n t o t h e l a w s u i t . "
Foy v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) , Mont. , 580 P . 2d
1 1 4 , 116-17, 35 St.Rep. 811, 814.
The s i t u a t i o n i n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e i s a n a l o g o u s . Holm-
s t r o m s u e d H u n t e r , b u t i t s r e a l q u a r r e l was w i t h t h e o r d e r
of t h e D i s t r i c t Court. A t no t i m e h a s Holmstrom a s s e r t e d
t h a t H u n t e r s e r i o u s l y d e v i a t e d from t h e o r d e r s of t h e c o u r t .
J u s t a s Anderson had no r e a s o n o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r d r a g g i n g
Eggan i n t o t h e l a w s u i t i n t h e above c i t e d c a s e , Holmstrom
had no r e a s o n t o s u e H u n t e r . J u s t i c e , e q u i t y and good
c o n s c i e n c e d i c t a t e t h a t Holmstrom s h o u l d b e a r t h e c o s t s o f
t h e defense of t h e a c t i o n . The award and amount o f a t t o r n e y
f e e s i s affirmed.
No p r o p e r a p p l i c a t i o n f o r a t t o r n e y f e e s b e i n g f i l e d o n
a p p e a l , they a r e hereby denied.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
W e concur:
Mr. C h i e f J u s t i c e H a s w e l l c o n c u r r i n g i n p a r t and d i s s e n t i n g
i n part:
I c o n c u r i n a f f i r m i n g t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t
Court on t h e f i r s t i s s u e .
I d i s s e n t from t h e award of a t t o r n e y f e e s f o r t h e
r e a s o n s s t a t e d i n my d i s s e n t i n Foy v . Anderson ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont. , 580 P.2d 1 1 4 , 1 1 7 , 35 S t . R e p . 811, 815.
An award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s u n d e r t h e g u i s e of making
t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y whole i s a p p l i c a b l e t o a n y c a s e ;
p e r m i t s s u c h a n award i n t h e a b s e n c e o f s t a t u t e o r c o n t r a c t ;
and c o n s t i t u t e s a c l e a r example o f j u d i c i a l l e g i s l a t i o n .
Where n e i t h e r t h e l e g i s l a t u r e n o r t h e p a r t i e s h a v e p r o v i d e d
f o r s u c h a n award, I would a b s t a i n from g r a n t i n g i t .
4;&~k-
Chief ~ u s t y c e