Morrison v. Higbee

PETER A. MORRISON, e t a l . ,

Plaintiffs,

ERWIN F . HIGBEE, e t a i . ,
Defendants.
.....................................
MILLER AND LEWIS IIUGKES,
THO~~S

Appellants,

VS.

JAMES E . ROBERTSON and OPA
M G E and ROSE M. MEGEE,
E E

I n t e r v e n o r s arid R e s p o n d e n t s .

Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
i n a n d f o r t h e County o f Y a d i s o n ,
The h o n o r a b l e Pi. W . L e s s l e y , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

C o u n s e l o f Record:

For Appellants:

Korrow & S e d i v y ; T e r r y Sckaplow, Bozeman, Montana

For Respondents:

!100re, R i c e , O I C o n n e l l and R e f l i n g ; avid C . ?.loon,
Bozeman, Montana

- -
S u b m i t t e d on B r i e f s : March 1 7 , 1983

Decided: June 30, 1 9 8 3
Mr. J u s t i c e L . C. G u l b r a n d s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e C o u r t .

Water users, Miller and Hughes, appeal from a judgment
o r d e r i n g them t o remove t r e e s and b r u s h from a l o n g t h e i r i r r i g a -

t i o n d i t c h e s and t o a l l o w r e s p o n d e n t s , R o b e r t s o n and Megee, to

r e p a i r and m a i n t a i n t h e d i t c h e s . The judgment was e n t e r e d i n t h e
D i s t r i c t C o u r t of the Fifth Judicial District, Madison County.

The two p a r a l l e l ditches in question d i v e r t water out of
S o u t h Meadow C r e e k , which r i s e s i n S o u t h Meadow Creek Lake i n t h e
B e a v e r h e a d N a t i o n a l F o r e s t , f l o w s e a s t e r l y , and t h e n e m p t i e s i n t o

E n n i s Lake. The d i t c h used by a p p e l l a n t s , M i l l e r and Hughes, is
t h e f i r s t d i t c h of t h e two p a r a l l e l d i t c h e s t o t a k e w a t e r o u t of
S o u t h Meadow C r e e k . The second d i t c h , several f e e t below t h e

Miller-Hughes d i t c h , i s used by r e s p o n d e n t s , R o b e r t s o n and Megee.
A p p e l l a n t Miller d i v e r t s h i s w a t e r o u t of t h e upper ditch.
The two d i t c h e s t h e n meet c a r r y i n g t h e w a t e r f o r Megee, Hughes,

and R o b e r t s o n . After t h e two d i t c h e s meet, r e s p o n d e n t Megee's
d i t c h d i v e r t s water a c r o s s M i l l e r ' s land t o Megee's land. The
water remaining in t h e main d i t c h c o n t i n u e s t h e n p a s t Hughes'

h o u s e and t o R o b e r t s o n ' s l a n d . Robertson is t h e l a s t w a t e r u s e r
on t h e d i t c h system.
The p r e s e n t appeal arises from the District Court's order

requiring r e m o v a l of m a t u r e t r e e s and b r u s h a l o n g t h e b a n k s of

the ditches. Appellants, Hughes and Miller, claim that the
ditches w i l l wash away if the brush i s removed. Respondents,

R o b e r t s o n and Megee, c l a i m t h a t t h e b r u s h and t r e e s impede d i t c h

m a i n t e n a n c e and consume l a r g e amounts of w a t e r .
To u n d e r s t a n d how t h i s c o n t r o v e r s y a r o s e , w e m u s t l o o k t o a

d i s s a t i s f i e d w a t e r u s e r ' s a c t i o n begun i n 1 9 7 7 .
On J u n e 2 2 , 1 9 7 7 , two downstream w a t e r u s e r s on S o u t h Meadow
Creek f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t t h e water commissioner, seeking

proper distribution of water under a 1912 decree. The
complainants alleged that t h e water measuring d e v i c e s upstream
were d e f e c t i v e , improperly placed, o r locked, thereby preventing

p r o p e r d i s t r i b u t i o n of w a t e r .
 Under s e c t i o n 85-5-301, MCA, the Honorable Frank E. Blair
o r d e r e d a h e a r i n g t o d e t e r m i n e t h e p r o p e r e n f o r c e m e n t of t h e 1 9 1 2

decree. After the hearing, Judge B l a i r ordered t h e appointment
o f C h a r l e s C. Bowman a s c o u r t r e f e r e e .
On A p r i l 2 0 , 1 9 7 9 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t a d o p t e d t h e recommen-

d a t i o n s of t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e and f i l e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u -
s i o n s of law, and a d e c r e e r e q u i r i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , that
a p p e l l a n t s and r e s p o n d e n t s remove b r u s h from t h e i r d i t c h b a n k s .

The c l e r k of c o u r t c e r t i f i e d t h a t c o p i e s of t h e f i n d i n g s , c o n c l u -
s i o n s and d e c r e e had been s e n t t o a l l interested parties. No
document labeled "notice of entry of judgment" was filed or

m a i l e d by t h e c l e r k of c o u r t .
I n t h e f a l l of 1 9 7 9 , J u d g e B l a i r a s k e d t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e t o

i n v e s t i g a t e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t i e s had c o m p l i e d w i t h h i s o r d e r . In
A p r i l 1980, Judge B l a i r s e n t l e t t e r s t o the p a r t i e s p o i n t i n g o u t
d e f i c i e n c i e s found by t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e . In particular, Judge
Blair informed M i l l e r and Hughes that brush had not been cut

a l o n g t h e Miller-Hughes d i t c h .
On May 5 , 1 9 8 0 , i n r e s p o n s e t o t h e l e t t e r from J u d g e B l a i r ,
M i l l e r and Hughes f i l e d a p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of o r d e r and

findings. M i l l e r and Hughes c l a i m e d t h a t t h e d i t c h b a n k s would
wash o u t i f b r u s h were removed. They a l s o moved f o r s u b s t i t u t i o n
of t h e judge. The H o n o r a b l e W. W. L e s s l e y assumed j u r i s d i c t i o n

and s e t a h e a r i n g on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r O c t o b e r 1, 1 9 8 0 .
On September 24, 1980, Robertson and Megee petitioned to
i n t e r v e n e i n t h e p r o c e e d i n g s f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e 1 9 7 9 o r d e r .
A pre-trial h e a r i n g was n o t h e l d u n t i l November 1 9 , 1 9 8 1 , a f t e r
w h i c h J u d g e L e s s l e y a p p o i n t e d a Water M a s t e r t o h o l d a h e a r i n g o n
t h e m e r i t s of t h e m o d i f i c a t i o n p e t i t i o n .
On A p r i l 23, 1982, Robertson and Megee filed a motion to
dismiss the petition for modification, on t h e g r o u n d s t h a t t h e
p e t i t i o n was a m o t i o n t o amend judgment and t h a t t h e t i m e l i m i t s

of Rule 5 2 ( b ) , M.R.Civ.P., had n o t been f o l l o w e d . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t d e n i e d t h e m o t i o n and s e t t h e d a t e f o r a h e a r i n g b e f o r e t h e
Water M a s t e r .

On May 11 and May 19, 1982, the Water Master conducted

hearings. She h e a r d t e s t i m o n y , a c c e p t e d e x h i b i t s , and p e r s o n a l l y
viewed t h e d i t c h e s .

On J u l y 1 9 , 1982, t h e Water Master filed her findings of

f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w , and d e c r e e . She found t h a t t h e b r u s h
a l o n g t h e b a n k s impeded m a i n t e n a n c e of t h e d i t c h e s . She s t a t e d

i n h e r memorandum t h a t l i t t l e e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t o show t h a t
the brush prevented e r o s i o n of the ditch banks. Most impor-
tantly, s h e found t h a t t h e a g g r e g a t e e f f e c t of the brush lining

t h e d i t c h b a n k s r e s u l t e d i n c o n s u m p t i o n of l a r g e amounts of w a t e r
w h i c h would o t h e r w i s e be a v a i l a b l e f o r o t h e r w a t e r u s e r s on t h e
S o u t h Meadow C r e e k . She t h e n o r d e r e d t h e p a r t i e s t o develop a
s c h e d u l e of m a i n t e n a n c e t o remove t h e m a t u r e b r u s h from t h e s i d e s

o f t h e d i t c h e s , e x c e p t i n g t h e l a r g e t r e e s l o c a t e d i n t h e Hughes'
yard.
On July 16, 1982, the District Court adopted the Water

Master's decision. No n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was f i l e d . On
J u l y 3 0 , M i l l e r and Hughes moved t o amend t h e M a s t e r ' s f i n d i n g s

u n d e r R u l e s 5 2 ( b ) and 5 3 ( e ) , M.R.Civ.P. On A u g u s t 2 , R o b e r t s o n

and Megee moved to amend the judgment under Rule 59 ( g ) ,
M.R.Civ.P.
On A u g u s t 1 6 and A u g u s t 3 0 , t h e m o t i o n s were a r g u e d . The
D i s t r i c t C o u r t a s k e d f o r b r i e f s and t h e m a t t e r was deemed sub-
m i t t e d September 9 , 1982. On S e p t e m b e r 2 0 , 1982, t h e D i s t r i c t

C o u r t f i l e d a n amended judgment and memorandum. On O c t o b e r 8 ,
1 9 8 2 , a f i n a l judgment was f i l e d . A n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment
was f i n a l l y f i l e d on O c t o b e r 1 2 , 1 9 8 2 . M i l l e r and Hughes f i l e d a

n o t i c e of a p p e a l November 1 0 , 1 9 8 2 .
The t h r e e main i s s u e s on a p p e a l a r e :
1. whether t h e a p p e a l is t i m e l y ;

2. w h e t h e r t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e i n i t i a l l y had t h e a u t h o r i t y t o
recommend removal of t h e b r u s h ; and

3. whether the evidence supports the order t h a t the brush
s h o u l d be removed.
R e s p o n d e n t s have made s e v e r a l s t r o n g a r g u m e n t s r e g a r d i n g t h e
t i m e l i n e s s of t h i s a p p e a l . They c l a i m t h a t t h e c e r t i f i e d m a i l i n g

of Judge B l a i r ' s o r i g i n a l f i n d i n g s of f a c t , c o n c l u s i o n s of law,
and d e c r e e by t h e c l e r k of c o u r t c o n s t i t u t e d n o t i c e of e n t r y of

j u d g m e n t w i t h i n t h e meaning of Rule 7 7 ( d ) , M.R.Civ.P. They t h e n

a r g u e t h a t t h e p e t i t i o n f o r m o d i f i c a t i o n f i l e d one y e a r l a t e r was
a motion to amend judgment and not timely under Rule 59(g),
M.R.Civ.P.

Even i f t h e p e t i t i o n was t i m e l y , r e s p o n d e n t s a r g u e t h a t s i n c e
t h e p e t i t i o n was n o t n o t i c e d f o r h e a r i n g o r h e a r d w i t h i n t h e time
l i m i t a t i o n s of Rule 5 9 ( d ) , i t was deemed d e n i e d a s of May 1 5 ,

1980. The t i m e f o r a p p e a l t h e n e x p i r e d J u n e 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 .
Lastly, r e s p o n d e n t s a r g u e t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o amend judgment
filed on July 30, 1982, was also not heard within the time

r e q u i r e m e n t s of R u l e 5 9 ( d ) , and was t h e r e f o r e deemed d e n i e d on
August 1 0 , 1982. The time f o r a p p e a l e x p i r e d t h e n on S e p t e m b e r
1 2 , 1982.

R e s p o n d e n t s ' p r o c e d u r a l a r g u m e n t s m u s t f a i l s i m p l y b e c a u s e no
n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment was filed until October 1 2 , 1982.
The n o t i c e of appeal filed on Novemer 10, 1 9 8 2 , was t h e r e f o r e

timely.
I f a n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment had b e e n f i l e d , r e s p o n d e n t s '
argument t h a t t h e time f o r a p p e a l began t o r u n when p o s t - t r i a l

motions were deemed denied would be compelling, especially in
l i g h t of t h e c a s e s s t a t i n g t h a t a D i s t r i c t C o u r t l a c k s j u r i s d i c -
tion after the motions are deemed denied. S e e Winn v. Winn

(1982)I Mont. , 6 5 1 P.2d 5 1 , 39 S t . R e p . 1 8 3 1 , and c a s e s
cited therein. Moreover, t h e a d o p t i o n of respondents' argument
would lead to a fundamental contradiction. If the thirty-day

time f o r a p p e a l began t o r u n a f t e r t h e p o s t - t r i a l m o t i o n s were

deemed denied, t h e n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t would l o s e jurisdiction
p r i o r t o i t s n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment.

T h i s C o u r t h a s c o n s i s t e n t l y s t a t e d t h a t i t is t h e f i l i n g of
t h e n o t i c e of e n t r y of judgment t h a t b e g i n s t h e r u n n i n g of the
time limitations for filing a notice of appeal. Haywood v.
S e d i l l o ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 1 6 7 Mont. 1 0 1 , 5 3 5 P.2d 1 0 1 4 ; P i e r c e P a c k i n g Co.

v. D i s t r i c t C o u r t ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 7 Mont. 5 0 , 5 7 9 P.2d 760. This rule
h a s b e e n t e c h n i c a l l y a p p l i e d i n o r d e r t o a s s u r e p r o p e r n o t i c e and
a n u n d e r s t a n d i n g of when t h e time f o r a p p e a l b e g i n s t o r u n . In

b o t h Haywood and P i e r c e P a c k i n g , w e c o n c l u d e d t h a t a c t u a l n o t i c e
was n o t s u f f i c i e n t . A s i n P i e r c e P a c k i n g , we a r e a g a i n l e d t o a

technical a p p l i c a t i o n of the rule, and find t h a t the appeal is

timely.
One f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n h a s i n f l u e n c e d o u r c o n c l u s i o n t h a t

t h e appeal is timely. T h i s a c t i o n b e g a n u n d e r s e c t i o n 85-5-301,

MCA, as a dissatisfied water user's action. The procedure
g o v e r n i n g s u c h an a c t i o n i s q u i t e i n f o r m a l . No f o r m a l r e s p o n s e
p l e a d i n g s o r motions a r e r e q u i r e d . S e e A l l e n v . Wampler ( 1 9 6 4 ) ,
1 4 3 Mont. 486, 491, 392 P.2d 82, 85, q u o t i n g Gans and K l e i n
I n v e s t m e n t Co. v . S a n f o r d ( 1 9 3 2 ) , 9 1 Mont. 5 1 2 , 8 P.2d 808; and
S a i n v. Montana Power Co. ( 1 9 3 6 ) , 84 F.2d 126. Since standard

t r i a l p r o c e d u r e s a r e n o t f o l l o w e d i n t h e s e i n f o r m a l , summary p r o -
ceedings, t h e time l i m i t s governing p o s t - t r i a l procedures should

n o t be s t r i c t l y a p p l i e d .
Appellants argue t h a t t h e c o u r t r e f e r e e lacked t h e a u t h o r i t y
t o recommend t h e r e m o v a l of b r u s h a l o n g t h e d i t c h b a n k s . Since
t h e D i s t r i c t Court adopted t h e r e f e r e e ' s f i n d i n g s , a p p e l l a n t s a r e

a c t u a l l y c h a l l e n g i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
As noted above, t h i s a c t i o n began a s a d i s s a t i s f i e d water
u s e r ' s a c t i o n p r o v i d e d f o r i n s e c t i o n 85-5-301, MCA. The p u r p o s e
o f a d i s s a t i s f i e d w a t e r u s e r ' s a c t i o n is t o e n f o r c e t h e o r i g i n a l
decree, and oversee the water commissioner's distribution of
water through p r o p e r l y maintained d i t c h e s , headgates, and o t h e r
water measuring d e v i c e s . S e e s e c t i o n s 85-5-301, and 85-5-302,
MCA; Luppold v. L e w i s ( 1 9 7 7 ) , 1 7 2 Mont. 280, 5 6 3 P.2d 538; and
Allen, supra. Here, t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o r d e r e d t h e removal of

t r e e s and b r u s h on t h e d i t c h b a n k s i n o r d e r t o f a c i l i t a t e d i t c h
m a i n t e n a n c e and t o c o n s e r v e t h e w a t e r a b s o r b e d by t h e t r e e s and

brush for o t h e r water users. The D i s t r i c t Court's order does

n o t h i n g more t h a n e n h a n c e t h e method of d i s t r i b u t i o n by o r d e r i n g
a w e l l maintained d i t c h system.
The e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s t h e Water M a s t e r ' s f i n d i n g s t h a t remo-

val of t h e mature brush and t r e e s would not cause s i g n i f i c a n t
erosion. The e v i d e n c e a l s o s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s t h a t c e r t a i n

b r u s h and t r e e s need t o be removed t o e n s u r e p r o p e r d i t c h main-

tenance.
The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment

t

We concur: