Bostwick v. Department of Highways

,NO. 14893 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1980 GERALD H. BOSTWICK and MARJORIE E. BOSTWICK, Plaintiff and Respondent, THE DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, Defendant and Appellant. Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District, Honorable Frank E. Blair, Judge presiding. Cou-.~:~el Record : of For Appellant: Terry Clausen, Dept. of Highways, Helena, Montana For Respondent: Frank Davis, Dillon, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 3, 1980 ~ecided: JUN i1 Filed: JUFt ' Mr. Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . H a s w e l l d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. Defendant Department of Highways a p p e a l s from a n i n t e r - l o c u t o r y d e c i s i o n o f t h e Beaverhead County D i s t r i c t C o u r t , s i t t i n g without a jury, t h a t p l a i n t i f f s were e n t i t l e d t o compensation f o r t h e l o s s o f r e a s o n a b l e a c c e s s t o t h e i r property. W d i s m i s s t h e a p p e a l w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e on t h e e grounds t h a t a f i n a l judgment h a s n o t y e t been e n t e r e d i n t h i s case and t h e i n t e r l o c u t o r y o r d e r i s n o t a p p e a l a b l e . P l a i n t i f f s a r e t h e owners 3f a warehouse l o c a t e d on E a s t Helena and Washington S t r e e t s i n D i l l o n , Montana. The warehouse s e r v e s t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' own t r u c k i n g needs and pro- v i d e s r e n t a l s p a c e f o r v a r i o u s t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and moving lines. Trucking f i r m s which u s e t h e warehouse unload t h e i r s t o r a g e t h r o u g h a f r e i g h t d o o r f a c i n g E a s t Helena S t r e e t . Approaching t r u c k e r s e i t h e r back t h e i r t r u c k s t o t h e f r e i g h t d o o r o r p a r a l l e l p a r k on t h e s i d e w a l k between E a s t Helena S t r e e t and t h e d o o r . I n 1977 d e f e n d a n t Department of Highways p l a c e d s i g n a l p o l e s on t h e s i d e w a l k and t r a f f i c i s l a n d n e a r t h e d o o r . These p o l e s p r e v e n t a p p r o a c h i n g t r u c k s from p a r k i n g p a r a l l e l t o t h e warehouse. S i n c e t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e s e p o l e s , v i r t u a l l y a l l of p l a i n t i f f s ' c u s t o m e r s have s o u g h t s t o r a g e space elsewhere. On J a n u a r y 25, 1978, p l a i n t i f f s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g damages o f $100,000 f o r t h e Department of Highway's d e n i a l of a c c e s s t o t h e i r warehouse. The Department f i l e d a n answer which a d m i t t e d t h a t t h e s i g n a l p o l e s were e r e c t e d on E a s t Helena S t r e e t b u t d e n i e d t h a t a t a k i n g of p l a i n t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y had o c c u r r e d . A t t r i a l p l a i n t i f f G e r a l d Bostwick t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e warehouse would be w o r t h $100,000 i f i t c o u l d be used t o r e n t s t o r a g e space. H e s t a t e d t h a t h e a v e r a g e d $600 p e r month from r e n t a l s p r i o r t o 1965 and $1,000 p e r month be- tween 1965 and 1970. S i n c e 1977 a l l b u t one of p l a i n t i f f s ' c u s t o m e r s have s t o p p e d u s i n g t h e warehouse a n d , a c c o r d i n g t o p l a i n t i f f s , t h e v a l u e of t h e warehouse now i s o n l y $20,000. P l a i n t i f f Bostwick on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n testified that he m a i n t a i n e d a r e g u l a r s e t o f books which would s u p p o r t h i s testimony a s t o business l o s s . He d i d n o t , however, produce t h e books. Counsel f o r t h e Department moved t h e t r i a l c o u r t t o s t r i k e Bostwick's testimony because t h e w r i t t e n records were t h e b e s t e v i d e n c e of b u s i n e s s p r o f i t s and l o s s e s . The t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d t h e motion. The case was t r i e d on t h e i s s u e of whether p l a i n t i f f s w e r e e n t i t l e d t o compensation, and i f s o , how much. Both p a r t i e s s u b m i t t e d proposed 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 law a t t h e end of t h e t r i a l , and t h e t r i a l c o u r t a d o p t e d v e r b a t i m t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s u b m i t t e d by p l a i n - tiffs. These f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s a d m i t t e d t h a t t e s t i - mony c o n c e r n i n g damages was g e n e r a l and somewhat s p e c u l a t i v e . They a l s o c o n t a i n e d a p r o v i s i o n , however, t h a t t h e t r i a l c o u r t r e s e r v e d t h e r i g h t t o c o n d u c t a s p e c i a l h e a r i n g on damages, i f a f t e r n i n e t y d a y s t h e p a r t i e s were u n a b l e t o r e a c h agreement on t h i s amount. The l a s t p a r a g r a p h of t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s s t a t e d , " l e t judgment be e n t e r e d accordingly." The t r i a l c o u r t l a t e r d e n i e d t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s motion t o amend t h e f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s . Judgment was n e v e r e n t e r e d . The Department h a s a p p e a l e d from t h e s o - c a l l e d f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s e n t e r e d by t h e trial court. The e s s e n t i a l i s s u e s r a i s e d t h e Department a r e i t s contentions t h a t p l a i n t i f f s f a i l e d t o e s t a b l i s h e i t h e r a compensable t a k i n g o r damages. I n t h e a b s e n c e of a f i n a l judgment, w e w i l l n o t r e a c h e i t h e r of t h e s e i s s u e s . The t r i a l & o h r t l s o r d e r determined cornpensability b u t r e s e r v e d t h e q u e s t i o n of damages f o r a l a t e r h e a r i n g . As s u c h , t h e o r d e r w a s i n t e r l o c u t o r y and n o t a p p e a l a b l e . See S t a t e e x r e l . G r e a t F a l l s Nat. Bank v. ~ i s t r i c C o u r t t ( 1 9 6 9 ) , 154 Mont. 336, 463 P.2d 326; Rule 1, M.R.App.civ.~. The a p p e a l i s d i s m i s s e d w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e . 2&gp. a k d 4 Chief J u s t i c e W e concur: .,-:, ,y < ; k% L.~--- Mr. Justice Daniel J. Shea concurring: I concur with the dismissal of this appeal upon the grounds that it is not ready for review. Rule 1, M.R.App. Civ.P. coupled with the failure to comply with Rule 54(b) (certification of questions for appeal which are not otherwise final), clearly requires this result. See Rob Roy v. Neibauer (19801, - Mont. -I , - P.2d - 37 St.Rep. 897, where this Court, because of the persistent failure of the district courts and the attorneys of this state to comply with Rule 1 and Rule 54(b), we set out the procedures and requirements for obtaining certification. It is clear that the District Court proceeded in blatant violation of the procedural rules governing trials. In essence, he granted the plaintiffs two bites of the apple. I am aware of no powers of the trial court to in effect open the trial up for an additional hearing on damages in the event the parties cannot reach agreement as to the damages. The question of damages was fully litigated at trial and the trial court has no right to impose an additional evidentiary hearing on the state in the event it does not capitulate to the plaintiffs' demands. Either the record before the trial court establishes the right to com- pensation and the amount to which plaintiffs are entitled, or it does not. For this reason, upon this dismissal without prejudice, and remand to the District Court, I would direct the District Court to enter judgment based on the record before it. This court should not ignore the fact that the State of Montana also has rights in condemnation actions, and they have been manifestly abused in this case.