No. 12823
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE O M N A A
F OTN
1975
SILVER BOW COUNTY, a Body P o l i t i c
and C o r p o r a t e and P o l i t i c a l S u b d i v i s i o n
of t h e S t a t e of Montana,
P l a i n t i f f and Respondent,
CARL HAFER, J R . a / k / a CARL HAFER,
and PATRICIA ANN HAFER,
Defendants and A p p e l l a n t s .
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court o f t h e Second J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable John B. McClernan, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For Appellants :
Holland and Haxby, B u t t e , Montana
R o b e r t J. Holland a r g u e d , B u t t e , Montana
F o r Respondent :
Gary Winston, County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d , B u t t e ,
Montana
Maurice Hennessey, Deputy County A t t o r n e y , a r g u e d ,
B u t t e , Montana
Submitted : J a n u a r y 21, 1975
Decided : MAR - 4 1975
Filed : -
MAR 4 1975
M r . J u s t i c e John Conway Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e
Court .
T h i s i s an a p p e a l from a p r e l i m i n a r y o r d e r of condemnation
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 , S i l v e r Bow County, wherein t h e
County e x e r c i s e d i t s power of eminent domain t o condemn 3.64 a c r e s of
defendants ' land.
The f a c t s of t h e c a s e a r e : O October 1 5 , 1970, s i l v e r Bow
n
County i n i t i a t e d an a c t i o n t o condemn 3.64 a c r e s of defendants '
land f o r t h e purpose of improving t h e B e r t Mooney S i l v e r Bow County
Airport. ~ e f e n d a n t s ' land was needed t o e s t a b l i s h a " c l e a r zone"
a t t h e end of t h e runway t o comply w i t h t h e p r e s e n t r e g u l a t i o n s of
t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration.
Defendant landowners, C a r l and P a t r i c i a Hafer, f i l e d a respon-
s i v e p l e a d i n g a d m i t t i n g t h e County had t h e power t o condemn land
f o r a i r p o r t purposes b u t denying t h a t t h e County had demonstrated
a n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e t a k i n g , and f u r t h e r denying t h a t t h e County
could e s t a b l i s h a n e c e s s i t y f o r t a k i n g t h e i r p r o p e r t y i n f e e simple
absolute.
O May 9 , 1974, almost f o u r y e a r s s u b s e q m n t t o t h e f i l i n g o f
n
t h e condemnation complaint, a n e c e s s i t y h e a r i n g was h e l d and t h e
d i s t r i c t c o u r t heard t h e testimony o f two w i t n e s s e s i n b e h a l f of t h e
County--Ed DeGeorge and Charles Engdahl.
Ed DeGeorge, a county commissioner from S i l v e r Bow County,
t e s t i f i e d t h e County had t h e power of eminent domain t o condemn
d e f e n d a n t s ' land f o r a i r p o r t purposes.
Charles Engdahl, a c i v i l engineer employed by t h e F e d e r a l Avia-
t i o n A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , t e s t i f i e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' land was l o c a t e d
Il
within the c l e a r zone" approach t o t h e a . i r p o r t a s d e f i n e d i n t h e
r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration. Further, t h a t
i t was n e c e s s a r y t o a c q u i r e t h i s p r o p e r t y pursuant t o a g r a n t agree-
ment e n t e r e d i n t o between t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration and
t h e S i l v e r Bow County A i r p o r t . The a l l e g e d g r a n t agreement was n o t
introduced i n t o evidence. O cross-examination, however, t h i s t r a n s -
n
pired :
"Q. Jc ** What we a r e t r y i n g t o determine h e r e i s ,
i s i t an a b s o l u t e n e c e s s i t y t h a t you t a k e t h i s
man's l a n d a.way from him? A . I don k know a s I
can g i v e you a 1 yes' o r ' n o ' answer on i t .
"Q. P o s s i b l y , you knew t h a t i t would be ' n o ' ?
A. I f t h e r e was no o t h e r r a m i f i c a t i o n s involved
on t h e c l e a r zone, I would s a y t h a t you could say
t h a t i t wouldn't be. 11
A f t e r h e a r i n g t h e evidence, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t took j u d i c i a l
n o t i c e of t h e r e g u l a t i o n s o f t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration
and signed t h e o r d e r of n e c e s s i t y allowing t h e County t o t a k e
t i t l e t o t h e land i n f e e simple a b s o l u t e . Defendants a p p e a l from
t h a t o r d e r and r a i s e t h i s i s s u e : Has t h e county demonstrated t h e
n e c e s s i t y t o condemn d e f e n d a n t s ' land i n f e e simple a b s o l u t e ?
The a u t h o r i t y t o e x e r c i s e t h e power of eminent domain f o r
county a i r p o r t purposes has been d e l e g a t e d by t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e
t o t h e c o u n t i e s by s e c t i o n 1-801, R.C.M. 1947. However, b e f o r e
e x e r c i s i n g t h i s power, t h e County must f i r s t show t h a t t h e t a k i n g
i s necessary t o a public use. S e c t i o n 93-9905(2), R.C.M. 1947.
S t a t e Highway ~omrn'n v. Yost Farm Co., 142 Mont. 239, 384 P.2d 277.
It i s w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t a condemning a u t h o r i t y can n o t
a c q u i r e a g r e a t e r i n t e r e s t o r e s t a t e i n t h e condemned p r o p e r t y
than t h e p u b l i c u s e r e q u i r e s . This r u l e i n 3 Nichols on Eminent
Domain 5 9 . 2 [ 2 ] , s t a t e s :
"It n e c e s s a r i l y follows from t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t
p r o p e r t y cannot corrstitutiona1.ly b e taken by eminent
domain except f o r t h e p u b l i c u s e , t h a t no more
p r o p e r t y can be taken by eminent domain than t h e p u b l i c
u s e r e q u i r e s , s i n c e a l l t h a t might be a p p r o p r i a t e d i n
excess of t h e p u b l i c needs would n o t b e taken f o r t h e
p u b l i c u s e . While c o n s i d e r a b l e l a t i t u d e i s allowed
i n providing f o r t h e a n t i c i p a t e d expansion of t h e r e -
quirements of t h e p u b l i c , t h e r u l e i t s e l f i s w e l l e s -
t a b l i s h e d , and a p p l i e s b o t h t o t h e amount of p r o p e r t y
t o be a c q u i r e d f o r p u b l i c use and t o t h e e s t a t e o r
i n t e r e s t -acquired i n such p r o p e r t y . I f an easement w i l l
s a t i s f y t h e p u b l i c needs, t o t a k e t h e f e e would be u n j u s t
t o t h e owner, who i s e n t i t l e d t o r e t a i n whatever t h e p u b l i c
needs do n o t r e q u i r e , and t o t h e p u b l i c , which should n o t
be o b l i g e d t o pay f o r more than i t needs. f: * *" (Emphasis
supplied).
See a l s o : Berry v. Southern Pine E l e c t r i c Power Ass'n, 222 Miss.
260, 76 So.2d 212; S e a t t l e v. F a u s s e t t , 123 Wash. 613, 212 P. 1085;
Warm Springs Irr. D i s t . v. P a c i f i c Live Stock Co., (1921, CA9 Ore.)
270 F. 560.
I n S t a t e v. Whitcomb, 94 Mont. 415, 429, 22 P.2d 823, t h i s
Court examined t h e requirement of n e c e s s i t y and s t a t e d :
"* ** The s o l u t i o n of t h e q u e s t i o n of n e c e s s i t y i n
a given c a s e i n v o l v e s a c o n s i d e r a t i o n of f a c t s which
r e l a t e t o t h e p u b l i c , and a l s o t o p r i v a t e c i t i z e n s
whose p r o p e r t y i s taken. The g r e a t e s t good on t h e
one hand, and t h e l e a s t i n j u r y on t h e o t h e r , a r e t h e
q u e s t i o m o f f a c t t o b e determined i n p a s s i n g upon t h e
q u e s t i o n of n e c e s s i t y . I I
Apply t h e b a l a n c i n g t e s t o f Whitcomb t o t h e i n s t a n t c a s e ,
t h e l e a s t p r i v a t e i n j u r y t o d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y occurs when t h e
County i s g r a n t e d an easement t o r i d t h e " c l e a r z o n e l ' , o f a l l ob-
s t r u c t i o n s , prevent t h e c r e a t i o n of f u t u r e o b s t r u c t i o n s and t o
allow i t t h e r i g h t of e n t m c e and e x i t t o i n s u r e t h a t t h e s a f e and
u n r e s t r i c t e d passage of a i r c r a f t i n and over t h e a r e a i s u n i n h i b i t e d .
Such an easement i s e n t i r e l y c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e g u l a t i o n s
e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e F e d e r a l Aviation Administration enunciated i n
14 CFR § 151.9:
" ( a ) Whenever funds a r e a l l o c a t e d f o r developing new
runways o r landing s t r i p s , o r t o improve o r r e p a i r
e x i s t i n g runways, t h e sponsor must own, a c q u i r e , o r
a g r e e t o a c q u i r e , runway c l e a r zones. Exceptions a r e
considered (on t h e b a s i s of a f u l l s t a t e m e n t of f a c t s
by t h e sponsor) upon a showing of uneconomical acqui-
s i t i o n c o s t s , o r lack of necessity f o r the acquisition.
" ( c ) For t h e purposes of t h i s s e c t i o n , an a i r p o r t
o p e r a t o r o r owner i s considered t o have an adequate
p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t i f i t has an easement ( o r a covenant
running w i t h t h e land) g i v i n g i t enough c o n t r o l t o r i d
t h e c l e a r zone of a l l o b s t r u c t i o n s *** and t o p r e v e n t
the creation of f u t u r e obstructions; together with t h e
r i g h t o f e n t r a n c e and e x i t f o r t h o s e purposes, t o e n s u r e
t h e s a f e and u n r e s t r i c t e d passage of a i r c r a f t i n and
over t h e a r e a . " (Emphasis s u p p l i e d . )
The County has n o t demonstrated t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t a k i n g a
f e e simple t i t l e t o d e f e n d a n t s ' p r o p e r t y .
From what has been s a i d h e r e t o f o r e , i t appears t h e p r e l i m i n a r y
o r d e r of comdenmation should n o t have been i s s u e d ; i t i s ordered
dismissed.
,.MeConcur:
Chief Justice
Justices.