No. 80-18
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1980
IN THE MATTER OF THE REVOCATION
OF CERTIFICATE OF REGISTRATION OF
JAMES T. SHAW, Professional Land Surveyor.
Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District,
In and for the County of Flathead,
The Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Astle & Astle, Kalispell, Montana
For Respondent :
Alan J. Joscelyn, Helena, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: July 7, 1980
Decided : 2 5 19.80
Filed:
&G
.J 2 5 l$:gQ
Mr. ~ustice
Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t .
his i s a n a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , F l a t h e a d
County, which a f f i r m e d a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e c i s i o n by the
Board of P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r s and Land S u r v e y o r s of t h e
Department of P r o f e s s i o n a l and O c c u p a t i o n a l L i c e n s i n g ,
r e v o k i n g a p p e l l a n t ' s c e r t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n a s a r e -
g i s t e r e d land surveyor.
I n F e b r u a r y 1976 James T . Shaw w a s h i r e d by D r . John L.
Fenner t o c o n d u c t a boundary s u r v e y o f some p r o p e r t y owned
by D r . Fenner i n S e c t i o n 2 0 , Township 26 N o r t h , Range 20
West, F l a t h e a d County, Montana. Work on t h e boundary s u r v e y
was t o b e commenced a s soon a s p o s s i b l e w i t h c o m p l e t i o n
e s t i m a t e d i n f o u r t o s i x weeks.
During t h e s p r i n g , summer and f a l l of 1976, t h e s u r v e y
remained uncompleted, d e s p i t e numerous i n q u i r i e s and prompt-
i n g by D r . Fenner. On December 7, 1976, Shaw f i l e d a c e r t i -
f i c a t e of s u r v e y w i t h t h e F l a t h e a d County C l e r k and Recorder
which i n d i c a t e d t h a t monumentation on t h e s u r v e y had been
completed. On t h e f a c e of t h e s u r v e y p l a t w a s Shaw's c e r t i -
f i c a t i o n t h a t a l l e i g h t c o r n e r s shown on t h e p l a t had been
monumented by a p i p e 2-1/2" by 30" s e t i n t o t h e ground and
topped w i t h a marked aluminum o r b r a s s c a p . Shortly a f t e r
t h e p l a t w a s f i l e d , D r . Fenner p a i d Shaw i n f u l l f o r work
done on t h e s u r v e y .
I n March o r A p r i l 1977 D r . Fenner d i s c o v e r e d , c o n t r a r y
t o Shaw's c e r t i f i c a t i o n , t h a t monumentation f o r t h e boundary
s u r v e y w a s n o t complete. On May 23, 1977, Fenner i s s u e d a
f o r m a l c o m p l a i n t w i t h t h e Board of P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r s
and Land S u r v e y o r s (Board) l i s t i n g t h e problems he had had
w i t h Shaw. After receiving t h e complaint, t h e ~ o a r d s-
a
s i g n e d Roy Bulger t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e a l l e g a t i o n s . ~uring
h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n , Bulger i n t e r v i e w e d Shaw, a t which t i m e
Shaw a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e monuments f o r t h e p r o j e c t were n o t
p r o p e r l y i n s t a l l e d and i n some i n s t a n c e s n o t i n s t a l l e d a t
all. Shaw a d v i s e d Bulger t h a t t h e work would be completed
by J u n e 22, 1977.
On J u l y 2 8 , 1977, Shaw a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e Board r e g a r d -
i n g t h e Fenner c o m p l a i n t . Shaw a d v i s e d t h e Board a t t h a t
t i m e t h a t a l l n e c e s s a r y work had been completed on t h e
survey. Based on t h e a s s u r a n c e s of Shaw, t h e Board made a
f i n d i n g t h a t t h e " m i s s i n g monuments a r e now i n and r e c o r d e d , "
and c l o s e d t h e c o m p l a i n t f i l e .
Dr. F e n n e r , a f t e r b e i n g informed by t h e Board t h a t h i s
c o m p l a i n t f i l e was c l o s e d , i n s p e c t e d h i s p r o p e r t y and d i s -
c o v e r e d t h e work was s t i l l n o t complete. Dr. Fenner, s h o r t l y
a f t e r w a r d s , informed t h e Board of h i s d i s c o v e r y . Upon
l e a r n i n g t h a t t h e work was s t i l l n o t completed, t h e Board
notified Dr. Fenner and Shaw and asked them t o a p p e a r on
September 29, 1977. A t t h e t i m e set f o r t h e i r appearances,
Fenner appeared and reviewed t h e m a t t e r w i t h t h e Board.
Shaw d i d n o t a p p e a r . Upon h e a r i n g D r . F e n n e r , t h e Board
i n s t r u c t e d i t s a t t o r n e y t o b e g i n p r o c e e d i n g s t o suspend o r
r e v o k e Shawls c e r t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n . The Board a l s o
a s s i g n e d B u l g e r and C h a r l e s Hegman t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e s i t e
o f t h e boundary s u r v e y . When i n s p e c t i n g t h e s i t e on October
4 , 1977, t h e y found t h a t t h e p r o p e r monumentation f o r t h e
p r o p e r t y had s t i l l n o t been completed.
The Board m e t on F e b r u a r y 1 6 , 1978, and a f t e r r e v i e w i n g
t h e r e p o r t by B u l g e r and Hegman, unanimously p a s s e d a motion
t o i n s t r u c t i t s a t t o r n e y t o suspend Shaw's c e r t i f i c a t e of
r e g i s t r a t i o n and n o t i f y Shaw of t h e a c t i o n . However, s h a w l s
c e r t i f i c a t e was n o t suspended, n o r was h e n o t i f i e d t h a t i t
had been a t t h a t t i m e .
I n September 1978, Shaw was a d v i s e d t h a t t h e Board
proposed t o suspend o r r e v o k e h i s c e r t i f i c a t e and of h i s
o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g on t h e matter. Notice s e t t i n g
f o r t h t h e grounds f o r t h e proposed a c t i o n was d e l i v e r e d t o
Shaw and t o h i s a t t o r n e y . A h e a r i n g on t h e matter was h e l d
November 2 , 1978. A h e a r i n g s examiner i s s u e d f i n d i n g s of
f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w on J a n u a r y 1 9 , 1979. On t h e
b a s i s of t h e s e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s , t h e Board v o t e d t o
r e v o k e Shawls c e r t i f i c a t e of r e g i s t r a t i o n .
S u b s e q u e n t l y , Shaw f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r r e h e a r i n g and a
motion f o r s t a y w i t h t h e Board. Both t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e
motion were d e n i e d . Shaw t h e n f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r j u d i c i a l
r e v i e w w i t h t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t , and a motion f o r a s t a y of
t h e Board's decision. The B o a r d ' s d e c i s i o n w a s s t a y e d
pending t h e j u d i c i a l review. On December 1 0 , 1979, t h e
D i s t r i c t Court affirmed t h e Board's decision. Shaw a p p e a l s
t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
A p p e l l a n t f i r s t r a i s e s t h e i s s u e of w h e t h e r , p u r s u a n t
t o s e c t i o n 37-67-331(2), MCA, t h e Board i s p r e c l u d e d from
p r o c e e d i n g on t h e c h a r g e s a s b r o u g h t .
S e c t i o n 37-67-331(1), MCA, s t a t e s t h a t t h e Board o f
P r o f e s s i o n a l E n g i n e e r s and Land S u r v e y o r s c a n revoke o r
suspend t h e c e r t i f i c a t e of a r e g i s t r a n t i f found g u i l t y of
" g r o s s n e g l i g e n c e , incompetency o r m i s c o n d u c t i n t h e p r a c -
t i c e of . . . land s u r v e y i n g as a r e g i s t e r e d p r o f e s s i o n a l
. .. land surveyor."
S e c t i o n 37-67-331(2), MCA, p r i o r t o i t s amendment i n
1979, i n d i c a t e s t h a t c h a r g e s a g a i n s t a r e g i s t r a n t engaging
i n t h e above improper a c t i v i t y may be b r o u g h t by any p e r s o n
s o l o n g a s t h e c h a r g e s a r e made by a f f i d a v i t and f i l e d w i t h
t h e Board. The s e c t i o n g o e s on t o s t a t e t h a t once c h a r g e s
a r e b r o u g h t t h e y w i l l e i t h e r be " d i s m i s s e d by t h e board a s
unfounded o r t r i v i a l , o r s h a l l be h e a r d by t h e board w i t h i n
t h r e e ( 3 ) months a f t e r t h e d a t e on which t h e y were made."
(Emphasis added. )
I t s h o u l d be n o t e d t h a t due t o a n amendment i n 1979,
s e c t i o n 37-67-331 ( 2 ) now p r o v i d e s t h a t w i t h i n - months of
six
c h a r g e s b e i n g b r o u g h t , t h e Board o n l y h a s t o " a c t " on t h e
c h a r g e s by d i s m i s s i n g them o r n o t i f y i n g t h e a c c u s e d of i t s
i n t e n t t o r e v o k e o r suspend h i s l i c e n s e . The Board under
t h e amendment i s n o t r e q u i r e d t o p r o v i d e a h e a r i n g w i t h i n
t h e six-month p e r i o d ; however, i n t h a t t h e a c t i v i t y i n v o l v e d
i n t h i s a p p e a l o c c u r r e d d u r i n g 1977 and 1978, w e must l o o k
t o t h e language of t h e s t a t u t e a s s t a t e d p r i o r t o t h e 1979
amendment.
A p p e l l a n t ' s main c o n t e n t i o n of e r r o r c e n t e r s on t h e
h e a r i n g h e l d November 2, 1978, which r e s u l t e d i n t h e Board
revoking h i s l i c e n s e . A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t t h e Board
f a i l e d t o h o l d t h e h e a r i n g w i t h i n t h r e e months of t h e d a t e
o n which t h e c h a r g e s w e r e made, a s r e q u i r e d by s e c t i o n 37-
67-331, MCA. A p p e l l a n t , i n s u p p o r t of t h i s argument, p o i n t s
o u t t h a t t h e c h a r g e s a l l e g e d i n t h e B o a r d ' s n o t i c e of pro-
posed a c t i o n and o p p o r t u n i t y f o r a h e a r i n g , d a t e d September
1 5 , 1978, and t h e n d e a l t w i t h a t t h e h e a r i n g on November 2 ,
1978, a r e t h e same c h a r g e s b r o u g h t by D r . Fenner on May 23,
1977, some s i x t e e n months e a r l i e r .
The Board, i n r e s p o n s e , a r g u e s t h a t t h e c h a r g e s w e r e
i n i t i a t e d on t h e B o a r d ' s own motion and s i n c e t h e r e i s no
s p e c i f i c r e f e r e n c e t o a p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n as t o when a
h e a r i n g must be h e l d on s u c h c h a r g e s , t h e p r o c e e d i n g on
November 2 , 1978, w a s n o t b a r r e d and t h u s p r o p e r under t h e
statute.
T h i s C o u r t a r g e e s t h a t t h e Board h a s a u t h o r i t y t o
i n i t i a t e i t s own c h a r g e s and c o m p l a i n t a s t o a l l e g e d improper
a c t i v i t y , b u t w e disagree t h a t it a l s o has unlimited discre-
t i o n a s t o when i t w i l l p r o v i d e a h e a r i n g on t h o s e c h a r g e s .
W e can f i n d no j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r t r e a t i n g t h e Board d i f f e r e n t
from t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c a s t o t h e p r o c e d u r e t o be followed
when c h a r g e s a g a i n s t a r e g i s t r a n t have been made.
A r e g i s t r a n t who h a s been c h a r g e d w i t h improper c o n d u c t
s h o u l d n o t be f o r c e d t o w a i t a n i n d e f i n i t e p e r i o d of t i m e
b e f o r e b e i n g g r a n t e d a n o p p o r t u n i t y t o be h e a r d a t a p r o p e r
a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g merely because t h e c o m p l a i n t w a s
i n i t i a t e d by t h e Board. The p r o c e d u r e f o r d e a l i n g w i t h
c h a r g e s a g a i n s t a r e g i s t r a n t are s e t o u t i n s e c t i o n 37-67-
3 3 1 ( 2 ) , MCA, and t h a t s e c t i o n , p r i o r t o i t s amendment i n
1979, s p e c i f i c a l l y s t a t e s t h a t c h a r g e s w i l l b e h e a r d by t h e
Board w i t h i n t h r e e months of t h e i r b e i n g made. W e find t h i s
l i m i t a t i o n a p p l i c a b l e t o b o t h c h a r g e s b r o u g h t by a member of
t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c and t h o s e b r o u g h t by t h e Board.
The c h a r g e s b r o u g h t by t h e Board on September 1 5 , 1978,
a r e a s follows:
I'(1) F i l i n g t h e Fenner p l a t w i t h t h e c e r t i f i c a -
t i o n t h a t monuments shown on t h e p l a t were s e t ,
when, i n f a c t , o n l y f o u r monuments w e r e s e t a t
most, and none were marked;
" ( 2 ) F a i l i n g t o s e t and mark t h e m i s s i n g monu-
ments i n t h e Fenner m a t t e r f o r more t h a n a y e a r
a f t e r t h e p l a t was f i l e d ;
" ( 3 ) S t a t i n g t o D r . Fenner and t o t h e Board of
E n g i n e e r s and Land S u r v e y o r s t h a t t h e monuments
were s e t and marked when i n f a c t t h e y were n o t . "
T h e f i r s t two c h a r g e s s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r t o a c t i v i t y
t h a t D r . Fenner f o r m a l l y complained of i n May 1977. A t the
t i m e t h a t c o m p l a i n t w a s f i l e d , t h e Board was f u l l y aware
t h a t i t would have t o e i t h e r d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t o r w i t h i n
t h r e e months p r o v i d e a n a d m i n i s t r a t i v e h e a r i n g on t h e m a t t e r .
I n t h i s i n s t a n c e , t h e Board c h o s e t o d i s m i s s t h e c o m p l a i n t .
I f t h e c o u r t w e r e t o now a l l o w t h e Board t o r e f i l e t h o s e
same c h a r g e s s i x t e e n months l a t e r , under t h e g u i s e t h a t t h e
c h a r g e s a r e b e i n g i n i t i a t e d on i t s own motion and, t h u s ,
somehow renewed, t h e three-month l i m i t a t i o n would become
vacuous of p u r p o s e and meaning. W cannot t o l e r a t e such an
e
outcome.
The Board, i n r e s p o n s e t o a n a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e t h r e e -
month l i m i t a t i o n , a r g u e s t h a t even though t h e c h a r g e s a r e
based on a c t i v i t y complained of s i x t e e n months e a r l i e r , t h e
p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n s a s t o when a h e a r i n g must be h e l d
s h o u l d n o t have r u n i n t h i s i n s t a n c e . I n support of t h i s
argument, t h e Board c o n t e n d s t h a t had i t n o t been f o r t h e
f a l s e a s s u r a n c e s by Shaw when he a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e Board
on J u l y 28, 1978, t h e c h a r g e s would n o t have been d i s m i s s e d
and t h e p e r i o d of l i m i t a t i o n s would n o t have been a l l o w e d t o
run. The Board c o n c l u d e s t h a t due t o a p p e l l a n t ' s a c t i o n s ,
h e i s now e s t o p p e d from a s s e r t i n g t h a t t h e l i m i t a t i o n p e r i o d
has expired.
The d o c t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l i s founded i n e q u i t y
and good c o n s c i e n c e . I t s o b j e c t i s t o p r e v e n t a p a r t y from
t a k i n g a n u n c o n s c i o n a b l e a d v a n t a g e of h i s own wrong w h i l e
asserting his s t r i c t legal right. Levo v . General-Shea-
Morrison ( 1 9 5 5 ) , 128 Mont. 570, 280 P.2d 1086.
The e s s e n t i a l e l e m e n t s of e s t o p p e l a r e : (1) t h e r e must
b e c o n d u c t , a c t s , l a n g u a g e o r s i l e n c e amounting t o a r e p r e -
s e n t a t i o n o r concealment of f a c t s ; ( 2 ) f a c t s must be known
t o t h e p a r t y e s t o p p e d a t t i m e of h i s c o n d u c t ; (3) truth
c o n c e r n i n g t h e f a c t s must be unknown t o t h e o t h e r p a r t y ; (4)
c o n d u c t must be done w i t h t h e i n t e n t i o n t h a t i t w i l l be
a c t e d upon by t h e o t h e r p a r t y , o r under c i r c u m s t a n c e s t h a t
i s b o t h n a t u r a l and p r o b a b l e t h a t i t w i l l be s o a c t e d upon;
( 5 ) c o n d u c t must be r e l i e d upon by t h e o t h e r p a r t y ; and ( 6 )
t h e p a r t y must i n f a c t have a c t e d upon i t t o h i s d e t r i m e n t .
Smith v . K r u t a r ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 153 Mont. 325, 457 P.2d 459; Kenco
v . C a n t r e l l ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 174 Mont. 130, 568 P.2d 1225.
T h i s C o u r t b e l i e v e s t h e Board h a s e s t a b l i s h e d t h e above
elements. A p p e l l a n t a p p e a r e d b e f o r e t h e Board on J u l y 28,
1977, and informed i t t h a t a l l monuments on t h e Fenner
p r o j e c t w e r e properly i n s t a l l e d . A t t h e November 2, 1978
h e a r i n g , D r . F e n n e r , owner of t h e p r o p e r t y , C h a r l e s Hegman,
a l i c e n s e d s u r v e y o r and i n v e s t i g a t o r on t h e c o m p l a i n t
a g a i n s t a p p e l l a n t , and Roy B u l g e r , a n a d d i t i o n a l i n v e s t i -
g a t o r , a l l t e s t i f i e d t h a t upon examining t h e Fenner p r o p e r t y
a f t e r t h e a p p e a r a n c e by a p p e l l a n t on J u l y 28, 1977, t h e y
d i s c o v e r e d monuments t h a t had n o t been p r o p e r l y s e t , c o n t r a
t o a p p e l l a n t ' s assurances. Had t h e Board been aware t h a t
t h e monuments were n o t i n p l a c e on J u l y 28, 1977, i t c o u l d
have i n s t i t u t e d t h e p r o c e s s f o r r e v o c a t i o n o r s u s p e n s i o n of
a p p e l l a n t ' s l i c e n s e based upon F e n n e r ' s c h a r g e s w e l l w i t h i n
t h e three-month t i m e l i m i t .
A p p e l l a n t a r g u e s t h a t i n s p i t e of t h e t e s t i m o n y o f
Fenner, Hegman and B u l g e r , t h e r e c o r d i s d e v o i d of e v i d e n c e
n e c e s s a r y t o s u s t a i n a f i n d i n g t h a t t h e monuments had n o t
been s e t p r i o r t o h i s a s s u r a n c e s t o t h e Board on J u l y 28,
1977. W e a g r e e t h a t t h e r e i s c o n f l i c t i n g e v i d e n c e on t h i s
q u e s t i o n b u t c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e t e s t i m o n y of Fenner, Hegman
and Bulger p r o v i d e s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t a f i n d -
i n g by t h e h e a r i n g s examiner t h a t t h e a s s u r a n c e s by a p p e l l a n t
on J u l y 28, 1977, were f a l s e .
Appellant misled the Board as to the work done on the
Fenner project, thereby lulling it into not acting on the
Fenner complaint within the required three months. We now
find, therefore, that appellant is estopped from asserting
the limitation period had run and, as a consequence, the
Board was proper in proceeding with the charges as brought.
To allow appellant to assert that the period had expired in
this instance would be to allow him to take advantage of his
own wrong. Such a holding would be both unconscionable and
inequitable.
A second issue raised by appellant is whether the
decision of the Board, as affirmed by the District Court,
was clearly erroneous in view of reliable, probative and
substantial evidence on the record.
In reviewing administrative decisions, this Court need
only determine whether there is substantial evidence to
support the findings. We will not substitute our judgment
for that of the administrative body if such evidence is
found to exist. Public Utilities Commission v. Northwest
Water Corp. (1969), 168 Colo. 154, 451 P.2d 266; Western
Amusement Co., Inc. v. City of Springfield (1976), 274 Or.
37, 545 P.2d 592; Standard Chemical Mfg. Co. v. Employment
Security Div. (1980), - Mont. , 605 P.2d 610, 37
St.Rep. 105.
As to the first two grounds upon which the Board de-
cided to revoke appellant's license, appellant makes no
argument as to the sufficiency of the evidence. Appellant
merely states that these grounds are based upon Dr. ~enner's
complaint and thus barred by the three-month limitation.
This issue has already been decided and warrants no further
discussion.
As to the third ground upon which the decision to
revoke was made, appellant argues the record is "devoid" of
evidence needed to support the finding that appellant misled
the Board as to work done on the Fenner project. This issue
has also been discussed. As stated earlier, even though
there was conflicting testimony, there still remains reli-
able and substantial evidence which supports the findings
made. Appellant being unable to persuade this Court that
there is a lack of substantial evidence on the record as to
the findings made, we are unable to rule that the decision
by the Board was clearly erroneous.
Appellant's final argument on appeal is that the hear-
ings examiner failed to make findings of fact as requested
on issues essential to the decision. See section 2-4-
704 (2) (g), MCA.
The first issue appellant claims is essential to a
decision in this matter but not dealt with in the findings
of fact as requested is that Dr. Fenner removed certain
monumentations purposefully.
The testimony of Dr. Fenner indicated that he removed
certain monuments. However, he also testified that removal
was done to show that the monuments had been set improperly.
Dr. Fenner's testimony further indicated that monuments
other than the ones removed were also set improperly or not
set at all.
The material issue in this case is whether or not all
the monuments were set by appellant as certified. The fact
that Dr. Fenner may have removed certain monumentations has a
bearing on this issue. However, based on Fenner's reasons
for disturbing certain monuments and his further testimony
as to the discovery of other unset monuments, the finding
requested by appellant is not so essential in this matter
that to omit it alters the outcome of the decision or preju-
dices appellant's rights.
A second issue claimed by appellant to be essential and
ignored by the hearings examiner is that the Board was of
the opinion this action was not warranted because appellant
was only technically wrong in filing a certificate indicating
there were monumentations when in fact there were none.
Without ruling on whether this issue is essential or
even supported by the evidence, we need only note that
appellant failed to include such a finding in his proposed
findings of fact. The finding not having been requested,
this Court cannot now rely on it to overturn the Board's
decision. See section 2-4-704 (2)(g), MCA.
The third issue claimed to be essential but not dealt
with in the findings of fact as requested is that the inves-
tigations conducted pursuant to the hearing were done im-
properly and that with surveying equipment the investigators
would have been able to find all the monuments.
We disagree with appellant's contention. Even without
the use of surveying equipment, the investigators were able
to testify that they discovered monumentation that was
incomplete. Thus, even if all the monuments had been found,
it would not have changed the outcome of the decision ren-
dered.
This.Court is unable to find that appellant's rights
were prejudiced at the administrative level or by the Dis-
trict Court's affirmation of the Board's decision. There-
fore, the judgment of the District Courcris affirmed.
J
Justice
/p$%
We concur:
Chief Justice
-)&&-
Justices
42.