Chennault v. Sager

NO. 79-89
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1980

C. B. CHENNAULT and MRS. CHENNAULT,
Plaintiffs and Appellants,

GEORGE SAGER, JOHN BUTTLEMEN, and
JOY NASH, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
GALLATIN COUNTY,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Gallatin.
Honorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:

Bennett ard Bennett, Bozeman, Montana
Lyman H. Bennett I11 argued, Bozeman, Montana
For Respondents:

Donald White, County Attorney, Bozeman, Montana
Leanne Schraudner argued, Deputy County Attorney,
Bozeman, Montana

Submitted: April 17, 1980
Decided: 6 - 1980
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of
t h e Court.

his i s a n a p p e a l from a judgment and o r d e r o f t h e

~ i s t r i c C o u r t of t h e E i g h t e e n t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t r e l i e v i n g
t

r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e e f f e c t s of a temporary r e s t r a i n i n g

order. The r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r was i s s u e d a s p a r t i a l r e l i e f

prayed f o r i n a c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by a p p e l l a n t s wT;lch s o u g h t

t o permanently e n j o i n r e s p o n d e n t s from a u t h o r i z i n g o r making
any improvements upon c e r t a i n p r o p e r t y which had been o r i -

g i n a l l y d e s i g n a t e d and d e d i c a t e d , under a s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t ,

a s a county road.

Appellants, M r . and M r s . C. B. C h e n n a u l t , are t h e

owners of L o t s 9 and 1 0 o f t h e Lionhead Homesites S u b d i v i -

s i o n i n G a l l a t i n County, Montana. These l o t s are s i t u a t e d

a d j a c e n t t o C e n t r a l Avenue. C e n t r a l Avenue i s a s t r e e t

w i t h i n t h e s u b d i v i s i o n which was d e s i g n a t e d a s a p u b l i c

s t r e e t a t t h e t i m e of t h e r e c o r d i n g o f t h e s u b d i v i s i o n p l a t .

During 1973 a p p e l l a n t s c o n t a c t e d t h e G a l l a t i n County

commissioners r e g a r d i n g t h e p o s s i b l e abandonment of a por-

t i o n of C e n t r a l Avenue. A p e t i t i o n was t h e r e a f t e r d r a f t e d

by t h e c o u n t y on a p p e l l a n t s ' b e h a l f . The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d

t h e abandonment of t h e n o r t h e r l y 100 f e e t o f C e n t r a l Avenue.

A p p e l l a n t s c i r c u l a t e d t h e p e t i t i o n among t h e f r e e h o l d e r s of

t h e i r s u b d i v i s i o n and o b t a i n e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s of f o u r p e o p l e

endorsing t h e p e t i t i o n : C. B. C h e n n a u l t , O r i o n L. Hendry,

G e r a l d i n e Hendry, and V i r i l G i l l e s p i e . A f t e r t h e f i l i n g of
t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e c o u n t y commissioners a p p o i n t e d a board o f

viewers t o i n s p e c t t h e p o r t i o n of t h e street s p e c i f i e d i n
the petition. The i n s p e c t i o n was conducted on August 1 6 ,

1973. On August 23, 1973, t h e board of v i e w e r s f i l e d a

r e p o r t recommending abandonment of t h e p o r t i o n of t h e r o a d .
 On August 2 1 , 1973, t h e G a l l a t i n County r o a d s u p e r -

v i s o r ' s o f f i c e r S e n t n o t i c e s t o t h o s e p e o p l e who had s i g n e d

t h e p e t i t i o n i n f o r m i n g them t h a t a h e a r i n g would be h e l d

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e p e t i t i o n on September 6, 1973. Notices

were s e n t by c e r t i f i e d m a i l t o Orion L . Hendry, C. B. Chen-

nault ard M r s . V i r i l Gillespie. However, n o t i c e w a s n o t

g i v e n t o any o t h e r a d j o i n i n g landowners of r e c o r d . The

h e a r i n g r e g a r d i n g t h e p e t i t i o n was h e l d on September 6 ,

1973. A t t h e hearing, t h e commissioners a c c e p t e d t h e recom-

mendation of t h e board o f v i e w e r s and r e s o l v e d t o abandon

t h e r e q u e s t e d p o r t i o n of t h e s t r e e t .

S u b s e q u e n t l y , i n 1976, t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y became aware

t h a t t h e r e w e r e s e v e r a l i n a d e q u a c i e s employed i n t h e p r o c e s s

t o abandon t h e s t r e e t . I n a l e t t e r d a t e d J u l y 1 2 , 1976, t h e

c o u n t y a t t o r n e y n o t i f i e d t h e commissioners of t h e i n a d e -

q u a c i e s and recommended t h a t t h e o r d e r o f abandonment b e s e t

a s i d e a s i n v a l i d and v o i d . The l e t t e r s t a t e d t h a t , under

Montana l a w , t o o few p e o p l e had s i g n e d t h e p e t i t i o n f o r

abandonment and t h a t n o t i c e w a s n o t p r o p e r l y s e r v e d . Fol-

lowing t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y ' s recommendation, t h e commis-

s i o n e r s i n v a l i d a t e d t h e o r d e r f o r abandonment on J u l y 1 4 ,

1976.

Upon b e i n g n o t i f i e d t h a t t h e abandonment had been

i n v a l i d a t e d , a p p e l l a n t s c o n t a c t e d t h e c o u n t y a t t o r n e y and

were a d v i s e d o f t h e p r o p e r s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r aban-

donment. A p p a r e n t l y , a p p e l l a n t s a l s o r e c e i v e d a d v i c e from

o n e of t h e commissioners a s t o how t h e y m i g h t c u r e any

d e f e c t s i n t h e i r o r i g i n a l p e t i t i o n f o r abandonment. While

a p p e l l a n t s d i d p u r s u e some e f f o r t s t o have t h e o r d e r of

abandonment r e i n s t i t u t e d , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e y d i d n o t

follow prescribed s t a t u t o r y procedures.
 On September 4 , 1978, a p p e l l a n t s f i l e d a n o t h e r p e t i t i o n

i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e abandon-

ment of a second and s e p a r a t e s t r e e t w i t h i n t h e i r s u b d i v i -

sion. The s t r e e t s o u g h t t o be d e c l a r e d abandoned w a s known

as F i r s t S t r e e t . F i r s t S t r e e t i n t e r s e c t e d C e n t r a l Avenue

and a d j o i n e d t h e Lionhead S u b d i v i s i o n w i t h s e v e r a l l o t s of

t h e Southfork Subdivision. A hearing w a s scheduled f o r

September 5, 1978, r e g a r d i n g t h i s p e t i t i o n . A t the hearing,

d e v e l o p e r s of t h e S o u t h f o r k S u b d i v i s i o n s u b m i t t e d a l e t t e r

o p p o s i n g t h e r e q u e s t f o r abandonment b e c a u s e i t would b l o c k

access t o t h e i r property. The c o u n t y s u r v e y o r a l s o t e s t i -

f i e d t h a t c l o s u r e o f F i r s t S t r e e t would b l o c k a c c e s s t o t h e

S o u t h f o r k S u b d i v i s i o n and t o L o t s 3 and 4 of t h e Lionhead

Subdivision.

A compromise w a s r e a c h e d between t h e p a r t i e s : Central

Avenue would remain open a s a n a c c e s s t o L o t s 3 and 4 of t h e

Lionhead S u b d i v i s i o n a s w e l l as t h e S o u t h f o r k p r o p e r t i e s ,

and F i r s t S t r e e t would be abandoned e x c e p t f o r t h a t p o r t i o n

which c r o s s e d C e n t r a l Avenue. The c o u n t y commissioners

a d o p t e d t h i s compromise on September 2 2 , 1978, and d e c l a r e d

F i r s t S t r e e t abandoned p u r s u a n t t o t h e agreement.

The c o u n t y s u r v e y o r t h e n g r a n t e d t h e d e v e l o p e r s of t h e

Southfork Subdivision permission t o c o n s t r u c t a g r a v e l

access r o a d a l o n g C e n t r a l Avenue, i n c l u d i n g t h e n o r t h e r l y

100 f e e t of t h e r o a d f o r which t h e f i r s t abandonment had

been i n v a l i d a t e d . Appellants brought t h i s a c t i o n t o r e -
s t r a i n r e s p o n d e n t s from a u t h o r i z i n g t h e s e improvements upon

t h e road. A s p a r t o f t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d , a temporary

r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w a s i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t f o r

r e s p o n d e n t s t o show c a u s e why a permanent i n j u n c t i o n s h o u l d

not issue. A h e a r i n g w a s h e l d r e g a r d i n g t h e x a t t e r , and t h e
c o u r t e n t e r 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 . The

c o u r t h e l d t h a t t h e a t t e m p t t o abandon t h e n o r t h e r l y 100

f e e t o f C e n t r a l Avenue d i d n o t comply w i t h s t a t u t o r y r e q u i r e -
ments and w a s v o i d i n i t i a l l y . Accordingly, it determined

t h a t t h i s p o r t i o n of t h e s t r e e t had n e v e r been abandoned.

An o r d e r r e l i e v i n g r e s p o n d e n t s from t h e e f f e c t s of t h e

temporary r e s t r a i n i n g o r d e r w a s e n t e r e d by t h e c o u r t on

August 1 0 , 1979. I t i s from t h i s judgment and o r d e r t h a t

appellants appeal.

A s i n g l e i s s u e i s raised f o r our consideration: Were

r e s p o n d e n t s , a s G a l l a t i n County commissioners, e q u i t a b l y

e s t o p p e d from r e e s t a b l i s h i n g a p o r t i o n o f C e n t r a l Avenue a s

a p u b l i c roadway where t h e i n i t i a l a t t e m p t t o abandon t h e

roadway d i d n o t comply w i t h s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r aban-

donment?

Both p a r t i e s a g r e e i n t h i s case t h a t Montana s t a t u t e s

s e t f o r t h t h e e x c l u s i v e method by which c o u n t y r o a d s must be

abandoned. The s t a t u t o r y scheme f o r t h e abandonment of

c o u n t y r o a d s i s found i n s e c t i o n s 7-14-2601 t h r o u g h 7-14-

2621, MCA. To i n i t i a t e p r o c e e d i n g s , any t e n o r a m a j o r i t y

o f f r e e h o l d e r s o f a r o a d d i s t r i c t p e t i t i o n t h e board of

c o u n t y commissioners f o r t h e abandonment of a p a r t i c u l a r

road. S e c t i o n 7-14-2601, MCA. Within t h i r t y days a f t e r t h e

f i l i n g of t h e p e t i t i o n , t h e commissioners c a u s e a n i n v e s t i -

g a t i o n t o be conducted r e g a r d i n g t h e m e r i t s of t h e p e t i t i o n .

S e c t i o n 7-14-2603, MCA. A public hearing i s then scheduled
and n o t i c e o f t h e h e a r i n g i s g i v e n . S e c t i o n 7-14-2615(2),

MCA. The r e s u l t s of t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n and t h e h e a r i n g a r e
con;i,je.ced by t h e commissioners, and a d e c i s i o n i s e n t e r e d

whether t o abandon t h e r o a d . Within t e n d a y s a f t e r t h e
d e c i s i o n , t h e commissioners c a u s e n o t i c e of t h e i r d e c i s i o n
t o be s e n t t o a l l owners of l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e r o a d f o r which

abandonment was s o u g h t . S e c t i o n 7-14-2604, MCA.

The p a r t i e s f u r t h e r a g r e e t h a t t h e r e must be s u b s t a n -

t i a l compliance w i t h t h e s e s t a t u t e s b e f o r e t h e d o c t r i n e o f

e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l c a n be a p p l i e d a g a i n s t r e s p o n d e n t s a s

commissioners o f G a l l a t i n County. The g e n e r a l r u l e r e g a r d -

i n g t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e 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

and t h e v a c a t i o n , d i s c o n t i n u a n c e , o r abandonment of r o a d s i s

s t a t e d by one a u t h o r i t y a s f o l l o w s :

"While some l i m i t a t i o n s t o i t s a p p l i c a t i o n a r e
t o be found, t h e r u l e a p p e a r s t o be q u i t e gen-
e r a l t h a t where t h e p r o c e d u r e f o r t h e v a c a t i o n ,
d i s c o n t i n u a n c e , o r a l t e r a t i o n of a p u b l i c s t r e e t
o r highway by d i r e c t a c t i o n of p u b l i c a u t h o r i -
t i e s i s p r e s c r i b e d by s t a t u t e , i t i s n e c e s s a r y
t o adhere t o such procedure i n o r d e r t h a t t h e
v a c a t i o n o r a l t e r a t i o n be e f f e c t i v e ; . .. nor
a r e t h e p u b l i c a u t h o r i t i e s p r e c l u d e d by p r i n c i -
p l e s o f e s t o p p e l from denying t h e t e r m i n a t i o n
o f t h e e x i s t e n c e , o r a l t e r a t i o n , of t h e p u b l i c
way i n t h e a b s e n c e of s u b s t a n t i a l compliance
w i t h t h e s t a t u t o r y procedure . . ." 175 A.L.R.
760, 762 ( 1 9 4 8 ) .

The r e l u c t a n c e t o a p p l y e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l t o govern-

m e n t a l e n t i t i e s i s founded upon p u b l i c p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a -

tions. I t i s g e n e r a l l y t h o u g h t t h a t l a n d s h e l d by t h e

p u b l i c a r e t o be p r o t e c t e d and o n l y d i s p o s e d of where t h e r e

h a s been compliance w i t h t h e law. The i n t e r e s t s of t h e

g e n e r a l p u b l i c s h o u l d n o t b e d e f e a t e d , f o r example, by t h e

u n a u t h o r i z e d o r u n l a w f u l a c t s of p u b l i c a g e n t s o r o f f i c e r s .

See Norman v. S t a t e ( 1 9 7 9 ) , - Mont. , 597 P.2d 715,

The p o l i c y of p r o t e c t i n g p u b l i c l a n d s and making

s t a t u t e s t h e e x c l u s i v e method f o r t h e d i s p o s i t i o n of p u b l i c

l a n d s i s w e l l r e c o g n i z e d by o u r Const:itution. A r t i c l e X,

S e c t i o n 1 of t h e 1972 Montana C o n s t i t u t i o n s t a t e s :
1
 " (1) A l l l a n d s of t h e /state t h a t have been o r
may be g r a n t e d by c o n g r e s s , o r a c q u i r e d by g i f t
o r g r a n t o r d e v i s e from any p e r s o n o r c o r p o r a -
t i o n , s h a l l be p u b l i c l a n d s o f t h e s t a t e . They
s h a l l be h e l d i n t r u s t f o r t h e p e o p l e , t o be
d i s p o s e d of a s h e r e a f t e r p r o v i d e d , f o r t h e re-
s p e c t i v e p u r p o s e s f o r which t h e y have been o r
may be g r a n t e d , d o n a t e d o r d e v i s e d .

" ( 2 ) - -c h l a n d o r any e s t a t e o r i n t e r e s t
N su --
o
t h e r e i n s h a l l -e r be d i s p o s e d o f e x c e p t i n
ev -
p u r s u a n c e g e n e r a l l a w s providing -- f o r such
d i s p o s i t i o n , o r u n t i l t h e f u l l m a r k e t v a l u e of
t h e e s t a t e o r i n t e r e s t d i s p o s e d o f , t o be a s -
c e r t a i n e d i n such manner a s may b e - p r o v i d e d by
law, h a s been p a i d o r s a f e l y s e c u r e d t o t h e
state. " (Emphasis added. )

A s a r e s u l t of t h e s e p o l i c y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , we have

s t a t e d i n p r e v i o u s cases t h a t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e doc-

t r i n e of e q u i t a b l e e s t o p p e l t o governmental e n t i t i e s w i l l be

looked upon w i t h d i s f a v o r . The d o c t r i n e w i l l o n l y be ap-

p l i e d i n e x c e p t i o n a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s o r where t h e r e i s mani-

f e s t injustice. Von Tobel v. C i t y of Lewistown ( 1 9 1 0 ) , 4 1

Mont. 226, 108 P. 910; B i l l i n g s v. P i e r c e Co. ( 1 9 4 5 ) , 117

Mont. 255, 1 6 1 P.2d 636. W must d e t e r m i n e , under t h e
e

p a r t i c u l a r f a c t s and c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s c a s e , whether t h e

d o c t r i n e s h o u l d be a p p l i e d h e r e . T h a t d e t e r m i n a t i o n , of

c o u r s e , i s d e p e n d e n t upon whether t h e r e w a s s u b s t a n t i a l

compliance w i t h Montana s t a t u t e s r e g a r d i n g t h e abandonment

of roads.

I n t h i s c a s e , r e s p o n d e n t s s u g g e s t a s one of t h e i r a r g u -

ments t h a t a p p e l l a n t s d i d n o t o b t a i n a s u f f i c i e n t number of

s i g n a t u r e s t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply w i t h t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of

s e c t i o n 7-14-2601, MCA. T h a t s t a t u t e , a s h a s been p r e v i -

ously stated, requires a petition t o contain the signatures

o f e i t h e r t e n o r a m a j o r i t y o f f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e r o a d

d i s t r i c t where abandonment i s s o u g h t . A p p e l l a n t s ' :?et:ition

o b v i o u s l y d o e s n o t comply w i t h t h e f i r s t p a r t of t h e s t a t -

u t e , s i n c e it only c o n t a i n s four s i g n a t u r e s .
 I t a l s o a p p e a r s , under t h e f a c t s p r e s e n t e d , t h a t com-

p l i a n c e w i t h t h e second p a r t was i m p o s s i b l e . During o r a l

argument, t h e p a r t i e s informed u s t h a t t h e e n t i r e G a l l a t i n

County comprises o n l y one r o a d d i s t r i c t , i n which t h e r e a r e

w e l l o v e r 40,000 r e s i d e n t s . A " m a j o r i t y , " t h e r e f o r e , would

be more t h a n 20,000 s i g n a t u r e s . Because of t h e a b s u r d i t y of

t h i s requirement, a p p e l l a n t s suggest t h a t t h e s t a t u t e should

be c o n s t r u e d t o r e q u i r e o n l y t h e s i g n a t u r e s of " a m a j o r i t y

o f t h o s e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d " by t h e abandonment. I t i s urged

under such a c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t simply t h e s i g n a t u r e s o f

t h o s e owning l a n d which immediately a d j o i n s t h e l a n d s o u g h t

t o be abandoned would be s u f f i c i e n t . Although t h e r e a r e

s e v e r a l p e r s o n s owning l a n d on C e n t r a l Avenue i n t h i s c a s e ,

o n l y t h r e e landowners own l o t s immediately a d j o i n i n g t h e

n o r t h e r l y 1 0 0 f e e t of t h e s t r e e t .

W e d e c l i n e t o a d o p t t h e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n advanced by

appellants. Adopting t h a t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n would f o r c e u s t o

exceed o u r p r o p e r r o l e i n t h e c o n s t r u c t i o n of s t a t u t e s . The

r o l e of a c o u r t i n c o n s t r u i n g a s t a t u t e i s s i m p l y t o ascer-

t a i n and d e c l a r e i t s s u b s t a n c e and n o t t o i n s e r t what h a s

been o m i t t e d . S e c t i o n 1-2-101, MCA. I n t h i s connection,

t h e l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t t o t h e s t a t u t e i s t o be p u r s u e d i f

possible. S e c t i o n 1-2-102, MCA. Here, t h e s t a t u t e s i m p l y

s t a t e s t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n must c o n t a i n , a s one a l t e r n a t i v e ,

t h e s i g n a t u r e s of a " m a j o r i t y of f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e r o a d

district." The s t a t u t e d o e s n o t s a y " a m a j o r i t y of t h o s e

directly affected." Nor i s t h e r e any l e g i s l a t i v e i n t e n t

e x p r e s s e d t h a t t h i s was t h e d e s i r e of t h e l e g i s l a t u r e .

F u r t h e r , even i f w e were t o a d o p t a p p e l l a n t s ' i n t e r p r e -

t a t i o n , i t i s d o u b t f u l whether t h i s would r i d any problems

of a p p l i c a t i o n . The p r e s e n t problem w i t h a p p l y i n g t h e
"majority requirement" i s t h a t t h e s i z e of road d i s t r i c t s

and t h e number of f r e e h o l d e r s t h e r e i n v a r y . Depending upon

whether t h e r e i s one o r many r o a d d i s t r i c t s i n a c o u n t y , i t

may be r e a s o n a b l e t o a t t e m p t t o o b t a i n a m a j o r i t y i n some

circumstances while i t i s unreasonable i n o t h e r s . Similarly,

t h e problem w i t h a p p e l l a n t s ' proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n l i e s i n

d e t e r m i n i n g which landowners a r e d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d . It is

an o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n t o say t h a t " d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d land-

owners" a r e t h o s e who own l o t s i m m e d i a t e l y a d j a c e n t t o t h e

l a n d s o u g h t t o be abandoned. Conceivably, o t h e r landowners

b e s i d e s t h e s e a r e a f f e c t e d by t h e abandonment.

A number o f c a s e s have h e l d t h a t a r e q u i r e d number of

s i g n a t u r e s s p e c i f i e d i n a s t a t u t e f o r t h e abandonment, vaca-

t i o n o r t e r m i n a t i o n of a r o a d i s a m a t e r i a l e l e m e n t and t h a t

t h e f a i l u r e t o o b t a i n s u c h s i g n a t u r e s f a l l s s h o r t o f sub-

s t a n t i a l compliance. See 175 A.L.R. 760, 771, f o r a n e x t e n -

s i v e l i s t of cases. F o r example, where a s t a t u t e f o r t h e

v a c a t i o n o f a p u b l i c highway r e q u i r e d t h e s i g n a t u r e s of

t w e l v e f r e e h o l d e r s of t h e c o u n t y , and a p p e l l a n t s u b m i t t e d a

p e t i t i o n f o r vacation containing only one s i g n a t u r e , a c o u r t

held t h a t t h e board of commissioners was w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y

t o a c t with respect t o t h e vacation. Eads v. Kumley ( 1 9 1 8 ) ,

67 1nd.App. 361, 119 N.E. 219. There t h e c o u r t s t a t e d t h a t

t h e commissioners had o n l y such powers a s were c o n f e r r e d

upon them by s t a t u t e , and where p r o c e d u r e s e n u n c i a t e d by

s t a t u t e w e r e n o t complied w i t h , t h e p r o c e e d i n g was a

nullity. Eads, 119 N . E . a t 221. I n d e a l i n g w i t h t h e same

s t a t u t e i n a n o t h e r case where seven of s e v e n t e e n p e t i t i o n e r s

f i l e d a w r i t t e n w i t h d r a w a l of t h e i r names from a p e t i t i o n

f o r v a c a t i o n b e f o r e t h e r e was an assumption of j u r i s d i c t i o n ,
t h e c o u r t h e l d t h e commissioners w e r e w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o
assume j u r i s d i c t i o n and c o n s i d e r t h e m a t t e r . Current v.

C u r r e n t (19201, 72 Ind-App. 3 6 3 , 125 N . E . 779.

I n t h i s c a s e , w e do n o t t h i n k i t was a n u n r e a s o n a b l e

burden f o r a p p e l l a n t s t o o b t a i n t e n s i g n a t u r e s on t h e i r

abandonment p e t i t i o n . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t c o r r e c t l y h e l d

t h a t , b e c a u s e t h e r e was a f a i l u r e t o s u b s t a n t i a l l y comply

w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s on abandonment, t h e p r o c e e d i n g was v o i d

initially. The comrnissioners were w i t h o u t a u t h o r i t y t o a c t

w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e abandonment.

A p p e l l a n t s h e r e r e l y h e a v i l y on t h e f a c t t h a t c o u n t y

o f f i c i a l s and employees w e r e i n t r i c a t e l y i n v o l v e d i n t h e

a t t e m p t e d abandonment. Appellants contend t h a t t h e county

s h o u l d be e s t o p p e d from i n v a l i d a t i n g t h e abandonment b e c a u s e

t h e a c t s c o n s t i t u t i n g noncompliance w i t h t h e s t a t u t e s w e r e

t h e u n i l a t e r a l a c t s o f t h e county. County employees p r e -

pared a p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n providing space f o r only s i x

s i g n a t u r e s , and a c o u n t y commissioner a p p a r e n t l y gave a p p e l -

l a n t s improper a d v i c e a s t o how t o c u r e d e f e c t s i n t h e

p e t i t i o n once t h e o r d e r f o r abandonment had been i n v a l i -

dated.

Although a p p e l l a n t s had, a r g u a b l y , e q u a l a c c e s s t o t h e

law, w e t h i n k i n g e n e r a l t h a t t h e p u b l i c h a s a r i g h t t o r e l y

upon t h e a d v i c e and a c t i o n s of p u b l i c employees and o f f i -

cials. I n t h i s connection, w e note t h a t t h e county a t t o r n e y

properly advised a p p e l l a n t s of t h e s t a t u t o r y procedures f o r

abandonment. I r r e s p e c t i v e of t h e n e g l i g e n c e of p u b l i c

employees and o f f i c i a l s , however, t h e f o r e m o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n

i n o u r minds l i e s w i t h t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p u b l i c i n t e r e s t .

T h i s c o u n t e r v a i l i n g p u b l i c p o l i c y h a s t a k e n on such impor-

tance t h a t it i s expressed i n our C o n s t i t u t i o n . Where

p u b l i c l a n d s a r e d i s p o s e d o f and t h e r e h a s been i n s u f f i c i e n t
compliance w i t h laws p r o v i d i n g f o r t h e i r d i s p o s i t i o n , t h e

p u b l i c i n t e r e s t must b e p r o t e c t e d . I n Norman, 597 P.2d a t

719, 36 St.Rep. a t 1098, w e s t a t e d :

"We r e c o g n i z e t h a t i t w a s t h e n e g l i g e n c e of
t h e S t a t e ' s a g e n t s t h a t caused t h e s i t u a t i o n
which gave r i s e t o t h i s a p p e a l . However, t h e
i n t e r e s t w e s e e k t o p r o t e c t i s t h a t of t h e
c i t i z e n s of t h i s S t a t e t o r e c e i v e t h e h i g h e s t
v a l u e from t h e s a l e of t h e l a n d s t h e i r S t a t e
government h o l d s i n t r u s t f o r them. Strict
compliance w i t h t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l and s t a t u -
tory provisions r e l a t i n g t o those lands i s
t h e b e s t mode t o i n s u r e t h a t p r o t e c t i o n . It
i s g e n e r a l l y conceded t h a t w h i l e e s t o p p e l may
be e f f e c t e d a g a i n s t S t a t e government, i t may
n o t be a s s e r t e d where i t would i n t e r f e r e w i t h
t h e p r o t e c t i o n of t h e p u b l i c ' s i n t e r e s t i n
lands. [ C i t a t i o n s omitted. 1 "

Accordingly, w e hold, without addressing t h e remaining

arguments r a i s e d by a p p e l l a n t s , t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d

n o t e r r i n f a i l i n g t o a p p l y t h e 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 a g a i n s t t h e county. A p p e l l a n t s have n o t s u b s t a n t i a l l y

complied w i t h s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e s f o r abandonment. There-

f o r e , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t h a s no b a s i s f o r even c o n s i d e r i n g

t h e a p p l i c a t i o n of t h e doctrine. The o r d e r f o r abandonment

was v o i d i n i t i a l l y b e c a u s e t h e commissioners d i d n o t have

the authority t o act. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t d i d n o t a b u s e i t s

d i s c r e t i o n and, a c c o r d i n g l y , t h e judgment of t h e D i s t r i c t

Court i s affirmed.

W e concur:

%ap%