,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.