December 21 2010
DA 10-0330
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
2010 MT 271N
TODD PETERSON AND HAROLD PETERSON,
Plaintiffs and Appellees,
v.
RANDY ROODS, and all other persons who may
or are claiming any interest in the real property that
is the subject of this lawsuit, and parties “A” through “D”,
Defendant and Appellant.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and For the County of Yellowstone, Cause No. DV 06-444
Honorable Russell C. Fagg, Presiding Judge
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellant:
Brad L. Arndorfer, Arndorfer Law Firm, P.C., Billings, Montana
For Appellees:
Kenneth D. Peterson, Attorney at Law, Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: December 1, 2010
Decided: December 21, 2010
Filed:
__________________________________________
Clerk
Justice Brian Morris delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 Pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d)(v), Montana Supreme Court 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, the following memorandum decision shall not be cited
as precedent. It shall be filed as a public document with the Clerk of the Supreme Court and
its case title, Supreme Court cause number, and disposition shall be included in this Court’s
quarterly list of noncitable cases published in the Pacific Reporter and Montana Reports.
¶2 Appellant Randy Roods (Roods), and all other persons who may or are claiming any
interest in the real property that is the subject of this lawsuit, and parties A through D, appeal
the District Court’s order quieting title to a road crossing the property of Appellees Todd
Peterson and Harold Peterson (Petersons). We affirm.
¶3 Petersons purchased real property in fee simple within the boundaries of the Crow
Indian Reservation in Yellowstone County, Montana. A truck trail existed across Petersons’
property at the time of their purchase. Petersons commenced fencing and cross fencing the
property as part of making it a working farm and ranch. These cross fences included gates
where the truck trail crossed their property. Petersons knew that some of their neighbors
farmed further up the truck trail from their property and thus constructed the gates to allow
the neighbors, with permission, to access their farming property by the most direct route
through the Petersons’ property. The Petersons eventually locked the gates on the truck trail
and offered keys to those who needed them or allowed those neighbors to use their own
locks.
2
¶4 Petersons claim to have granted Roods permission to cross the property. A dispute
arose between Roods and Petersons around 2001 and continued through 2004. The dispute
reached a head in 2005 or 2006 when Roods used a road grader to build up a new roadway
and make ditches into Petersons’ fields and pastures.
¶5 Petersons filed an action to quiet title to the road. Roods filed a motion to dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that tribal jurisdiction preempted state jurisdiction in this
case. The District Court denied Roods’s motion to dismiss on the grounds that the dispute
involved fee land owned by non-tribal members. Roods joined the Department of Interior as
a party and removed the case to the federal court. The Department of Interior produced a
witness for deposition in the federal court proceeding.
¶6 Roods agreed to dismiss the Department of Interior from the case in return for the
witness’s testimony. The federal court remanded the case back to state court where it
proceeded to trial. The District Court determined that the roadway had been used by families
from early times to access the outside world. The court noted, however, that the need to use
the road for access to the outside world ceased when the Bureau of Indian Affairs completed
a road from Pryor to St. Xavier in about 1980.
¶7 The District Court denied Roods’s claim for a prescriptive easement. The court found
that Roods had failed to prove that his use of the road had been established by open,
notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive, and adverse use for five years before the
filing of Petersons’ quiet title action in 2006. The court pointed to the fact that Petersons had
no knowledge of Roods’s claimed right until they allegedly tried to give keys to Roods
3
around 2001 or early 2002. The court rejected Roods’s attempt to rely upon use by others to
establish an easement. The court further noted that Petersons’ decision to build gates had
interrupted any continuous and uninterrupted use by Roods. Roods appeals.
¶8 Roods contends that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to declare the status of a
road within the exterior boundaries of the Crow Indian Reservation. He argues, in the
alternative, that the road has been openly, notoriously, and continuously used for at least 50
years by the public and cannot be abandoned.
¶9 We review the factual findings of a district court sitting without a jury to determine
whether they are clearly erroneous. Steiger v. Brown, 2007 MT 29, ¶ 16, 336 Mont. 29, 152
P.3d 705. We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the prevailing party when
determining whether substantial credible evidence supports the district court’s findings. We
review for correctness a district court’s conclusions of law. Steiger, ¶ 16. We have
determined to decide this case pursuant to Section I, Paragraph 3(d), of our 1996 Internal
Operating Rules, as amended in 2006, that provide for memorandum opinions. It is manifest
on the face of the briefs and the record before us that substantial evidence supports the
District Court’s findings of fact and that the court’s legal conclusions were correct.
¶10 Affirmed.
/S/ BRIAN MORRIS
We Concur:
/S/ MIKE McGRATH
4
/S/ MICHAEL E WHEAT
/S/ JIM RICE
/S/ JAMES C. NELSON
5