NO. 81-542
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
BRUCE J. BAILEY and HELEN L. BAILEY et al.,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
VS.
RAVALLI COUNTY, et al.,
Defendant and Appellant.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Ravalli
Honorable John Henson, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Robert B. Brown argued, County Attorney, Hamilton,
Montana
For Respondents:
Baldassin, Connell & Beers, Missoula, Montana
Thomas J. Beers argued, Missoula, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
William Bogqs argued, Missoula, Montana
Submitted: May 20, 1982
Decided: PToveinber 3, 1982
Filed: NSV 3 - 198%
Mr. Justice John Conway H a r r i s o n delivered the Opinion of the
Court.
T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s from a n a c t i o n f o r q u i e t t i t l e to one-
h a l f o f t h e roadway a d j o i n i n g l o t s owned by p l a i n t i f f s s e p a r a t e l y
i n S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s No. 3 , a p l a t t e d orchard tract in Ravalli
C o u n t y , Montana. A f t e r t r i a l on J u n e 8 , 1 9 8 1 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
of the Fourth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t found t h e land i n q u e s t i o n had
b e e n a b a n d o n e d and c l o s e d by t h e R a v a l l i County C o m m i s s i o n e r s in
1944 and, as a result, reverted to the abutting owners, each
r e c e i v i n g t o t h e c e n t e r of t h e f o r m e r l y p l a t t e d road.
From t h a t judgment d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l .
The p l a t o f S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s N o . 3 was f i l e d and r e c o r d e d
on October 16, 1909. The s t a t u t o r y c e r t i f i c a t e of dedication
stated in part:
"The l a n d i n c l u d e d i n a l l s t r e e t s , a v e n u e s ,
a l l e y s , p a r k s and p u b l i c s q u a r e shown on s a i d
p l a t are h e r e b y g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e
use of t h e p u b l i c f o r e v e r ."
On A p r i l 5 , 1944, a petition f o r county road closure with
twelve signatures was filed with the Ravalli County Clerk and
Recorder. The p e t i t i o n r e q u e s t e d t h e c l o s u r e of e i g h t r o a d s , s i x
of which were portions of roads in Sunnyside Orchards sub-
division. One o f those s i x , t h e p l a t t e d road between Blocks 1 0
and 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of
1 L o t 3 0 , B l o c k 1 0 , and L o t 3 , Block
11, is t h e s u b j e c t o f t h i s a c t i o n . H. H. Benson, t h e county s u r -
veyor, and J o e l P . Antrim, a c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r and o n e of the
petitioners, were a p p o i n t e d as v i e w e r s by t h e c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n
on A p r i l 5 1 1944. The v i e w e r s q r e p o r t recommended closing the
roads. T h i s r e p o r t w a s f i l e d w i t h t h e c o u n t y c l e r k and r e c o r d e r
May 4 , 1 9 4 4 , a f t e r h a v i n g b e e n a c c e p t e d and o r d e r e d f i l e d by t h e
commissioners May 3, 1944. The Commissioners ' Minute Book
recorded the proceeding on May 3, 1944, with the following
statement:
" ' W e f i n d t h e r o a d s a r e n o t b e i n g u s e d as
p u b l i c r o a d s and a r e n o t l i k e l y t o be used as
s u c h , and c l o s i n g o f s a i d r o a d s would n o t
inconvenience the public in any degree.
T h e r e f o r e w e recommend t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d
r o a d s be c l o s e d as p e t i t i o n e d f o r . Upon
m o t i o n made and s e c o n d e d r e p o r t was a c c e p t e d
and o r d e r e d f i l e d . "
A f t e r 1944, n e i t h e r the p l a i n t i f f s nor t h e i r predecessors i n
i n t e r e s t paid any taxes on a n y p o r t i o n o f the roadway, and no
p o r t i o n o f t h e roadway was f e n c e d i n t o t h e l a n d s now b e l o n g i n g to
r e s p o n d e n t s u n t i l t h e s p r i n g or summer of 1 9 8 0 .
On October 24, 1980, the Board of Ravalli County
Commissioners directed removal of obstructions in the roadway
b e t w e e n B l o c k s 1 0 and 1 o f S u n n y s i d e O r c h a r d s No. 3 .
1 Respondent
B a i l e y had p l a c e d a f e n c e a l o n g t h e c e n t e r of t h e r o a d p r i o r to
t h e county commissioner's d i r e c t i v e .
The f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s are p r e s e n t e d f o r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by t h i s
Court:
1. W h e t h e r a s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of lands designated for
s t r e e t s and a l l e y s i n a 1909 t o w n s h i p c r e a t e s a p u b l i c r o a d w a y ?
2. Whether the platted road in Sunnyside Orchards No. 3
b e t w e e n B l o c k s 1 0 and 1 t o t h e n o r t h l i n e of L o t 3 0 , B l o c k 1 0 ,
1
and Lot 3, B l o c k 11, was closed and abandoned by the Ravalli
C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s on May 3 , 1 9 4 4 ?
3. I f s o , w h e t h e r t h e l a n d w h i c h made up t h a t r o a d r e v e r t e d
t o t h e a b u t t i n g o w n e r s e a c h r e c e i v i n g t o t h e c e n t e r l i n e of the
formerly p l a t t e d road?
4. W h e t h e r a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r of l a n d a d j o i n i n g a d e d i -
c a t e d r o a d w a y , where t h e p u r c h a s e d o e s n o t i n c l u d e a n y p o r t i o n of
the roadway, acquires any interest therein if the roadway has
been c l o s e d ?
5. W h e t h e r t h e p l a i n t i f f s are e n t i t l e d t o a d e c r e e q u i e t i n g
t i t l e i n them t o t h e l a n d s , u n d e r claim o f a c q u i s i t i o n by o p e r a -
t i o n o f t h e l a w , w i t h o u t payment of t a x e s or b e i n g i n p o s s e s s i o n
of the premises for the statutory period of time?
6. Whether Ravalli County should be ordered to pay
respondents1 attorney fees?
Did t h e s t a t u t o r y d e d i c a t i o n of l a n d s d e s i g n a t e d f o r s t r e e t s
and alleys in the 1909 plat create a public highway?
In our analysis of the controlling statutes during the
periods here involved, we emphasize that there has been
c o n s t a n t and c o n t i n u o u s amendment and m o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e s t a t u -
t e s p e r t a i n i n g to s t r e e t s , r o a d s and h i g h w a y s from t h e 1 8 9 5 c o d e
o n down t h r o u g h t o t h e p r e s e n t . I t t h e r e f o r e becomes c r i t i c a l l y
n e c e s s a r y t o c o n s i d e r t h e s t a t u t e s as a c t u a l l y i n e f f e c t a t any
specific date.
As previously stated, t h e 1 9 0 9 c e r t i f i c a t e of d e d i c a t i o n i n
pertinent part stated:
"The l a n d i n c l u d e d i n a l l s t r e e t s , a v e n u e s ,
alleys, .. . shown on s a i d p l a t are h e r e b y
g r a n t e d and d e d i c a t e d to t h e u s e of t h e p u b l i c
forever. "
In the making of this plat, the owners complied with Section
3470, R e v i s e d Codes o f Montana 1 9 0 7 , w h i c h had been i n e f f e c t
s i n c e a t l e a s t 1895. In addition, s e c t i o n 3475, Revised Codes
o f Montana 1 9 0 7 , as a l s o i n e f f e c t s i n c e 1 8 9 5 , p r o v i d e d i n per-
tinent part:
"Every ... g r a n t to t h e p u b l i c ... marked
o r n o t e d as s u c h o n t h e p l a t of t h e c i t y or
t o w n , o r a d d i t i o n , m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d , to a l l
i n t e n t s and p u r p o s e s , a s a d e e d t o t h e s a i d
donee."
We, therefore, find that there was compliance with the 1907
c o d e s i n t h e making o f t h e d e d i c a t i o n , and t h a t s u c h d e d i c a t i o n
m u s t be c o n s i d e r e d as a d e e d t o t h e p u b l i c . The e f f e c t of t h a t
dedication is described in section 1337, Revised Codes of
Montana 1 9 0 7 , which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s :
" A l l highways, r o a d s , streets, a l l e y s , . . .
laid out ... by the public . . ., or i f l a i d
o u t o r e r e c t e d b y o t h e r s , d e d i c a t e d or aban-
d o n e d to t h e p u b l i c , . . . are p u b l i c high-
ways. "
The f o r e g o i n g s e c t i o n w a s e n a c t e d as a p a r t o f c h a p t e r 44 o f t h e
1 9 0 3 S e s s i o n Laws. In addition, i n t h e same s e s s i o n l a w s , sec-
t i o n 1342, Revised Codes of Montana 1 9 0 7 , was e n a c t e d w h i c h in
pertinent part stated:
"By t a k i n g or a c c e p t i n g l a n d f o r a highway t h e
p u b l i c a c q u i r e o n l y t h e r i g h t o f way and t h e
i n c i d e n t s n e c e s s a r y to e n j o y i n g and main-
t a i n i n g t h e same . . ."
We, therefore, c o n c l u d e t h a t by t h e d e d i c a t i o n , the roadway or
s t r e e t h e r e i n q u e s t i o n was c l a s s i f i e d by t h e 1 9 0 7 c o d e s a s b e i n g
a " p u b l i c highway." I n a d d i t i o n , we h o l d t h a t i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h
the statutes, t h e p l a t d e d i c a t i o n to t h e p u b l i c was t h e e q u i v a -
l e n t of a right-of-way d e e d u n d e r which t h e p u b l i c a c q u i r e d o n l y
the right-of-way and incidents necessary to e n j o y i n g and main-
t a i n i n g t h e p u b l i c highway. We, t h e r e f o r e , hold t h a t the dedica-
tion did create a public roadway or highway in 1909.
Was the platted road closed and abandoned by the Ravalli
C o u n t y C o m m i s s i o n e r s on May 3 , 1 9 4 4 ?
S e c t i o n 1 6 3 5 , R.C.M. 1935, p r o v i d e s t h a t t e n , or a m a j o r i t y
of t h e 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 , may p e t i t i o n , in writing,
t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s to d i s c o n t i n u e a n y p u b l i c h i g h -
way. The r e c o r d h e r e e s t a b l i s h e s t h a t s u c h a p e t i t i o n was f i l e d .
Section 1637, R.C.M. 1935, describes the procedure to be
followed on investigating the feasibility and desirability of
g r a n t i n g t h e p r a y e r of t h e p e t i t i o n , b u t is n o t p e r t i n e n t h e r e .
S e c t i o n 1638, R.C.M. 1935, is t h e s e c t i o n which d e s c r i b e s the
a c t i o n t o be t a k e n by t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s on t h e p e t i t i o n f o r v a c a -
t i o n and i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s :
" A f t e r t h e commissioners s h a l l have c o n s i d e r e d
t h e p e t i t i o n , p r o v i d e d t h a t n o t more t h a n o n e
member o f t h e b o a r d o f c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s
and t h e c o u n t y s u r v e y o r s h a l l act as v i e w e r s
i n making t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n , t h e y s h a l l make
a n e n t r y on t h e i r m i n u t e s af t h e i r d e c i s i o n
w i t h r e f e r e n c e t h e r e t o , and c a u s e n o t i c e o f
t h e i r a c t i o n o n s a i d p e t i t i o n t o be s e n t by
r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s and to a l l
l a n d o w n e r s as d i s c l o s e d by t h e l a s t a s s e s s m e n t
r o l l s o f t h e c o u n t y , owning l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e
r o a d w a y p r o p o s e d t o be ... discontinued ."
A s previously described, t h e county commissioners complied w i t h
t h i s section. They d e t e r m i n e d t h a t t h e r o a d s w e r e n o t b e i n g u s e d
a s p u b l i c r o a d s and c l o s i n g t h e same would n o t i n c o n v e n i e n c e t h e
p u b l i c and c o n c l u d e d and recommended t h a t t h e d e s c r i b e d r o a d s be
closed as petitioned for. These actions are sufficient to
c o n s t i t u t e a n e n t r y of t h e d e c i s i o n of t h e county commissioners
i n t h e i r m i n u t e s as r e q u i r e d u n d e r t h e code s e c t i o n .
With regard to notice of their action, s e c t i o n 1638 d o e s
r e q u i r e t h a t n o t i c e be s e n t by r e g i s t e r e d m a i l to t h e p e t i t i o n e r s
and t o a l l l a n d o w n e r s owning l a n d a b u t t i n g t h e roadway, b u t o n l y
a f t e r t h e abandonment. The record does not p o s i t i v e l y d i s c l o s e
t h a t such n o t i c e w a s given. However, w e f i n d t h a t a n y q u e s t i o n
w h i c h c o u l d be r a i s e d i n t h a t r e g a r d is a n s w e r e d by s e c t i o n 1 6 5 1 ,
R.C.M. 1 9 3 5 , which i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t s t a t e s :
"None o f t h e p r o c e e d i n g s a u t h o r i z e d by t h i s
c h a p t e r s h a l l be i n v a l i d b y r e a s o n of a n y
d e f e c t , i n f o r m a l i t y or i r r e g u l a r i t y t h e r e i n
which does n o t ... prejudice the substantial
rights of property owners immediately
concerned. "
A s contained i n s e c t i o n 1 6 3 8 , t h e power of t h e c o m m i s s i o n e r s to
v a c a t e was n o t d e p e n d e n t upon t h e g i v i n g o f n o t i c e to e i t h e r t h e
p e t i t i o n e r s o r a b u t t i n g landowners. The p u r p o s e o b v i o u s l y was to
g i v e a n o p p o r t u n i t y on t h e p a r t of s u c h p a r t i e s to o b j e c t a f t e r
t h e a b a n d o n m e n t , s h o u l d t h e y c h o o s e t o d o so. The e v i d e n c e shows
that at no time since abandonment i n 1944 have the roads in
q u e s t i o n b e e n used f o r s t r e e t and r o a d p u r p o s e s . In the absence
of any q u e s t i o n being raised by abutting landowners or p e t i -
tioners i n t h e s u b s e q u e n t p e r i o d of more t h a n t h i r t y y e a r s , w e
conclude that the proceedings cannot now be questioned.
W e d o h a v e a n a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n r a i s e d by t h e p r o v i s i o n s of
section 1614, R.C.M. 1935, which in pertinent part states:
" A l l p u b l i c highways once e s t a b l i s h e d must
c o n t i n u e t o be p u b l i c h i g h w a y s u n t i l aban-
d o n e d by o p e r a t i o n of l a w , . . .o r by t h e
o r d e r o f t h e Board o f County C o m m i s s i o n e r s o f
t h e c o u n t y i n which t h e y a r e s i t u a t e d ; b u t no
o r d e r t o a b a n d o n a n y highway s h a l l be v a l i d
u n l e s s p r e c e d e d b y d u e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as
provided i n t h i s act;
added. )
. . ." (Emphasis
On i t s f a c e , t h i s code s e c t i o n , which was i n e f f e c t on t h e d a t e
o f a b a n d o n m e n t , a p p e a r s t o r e q u i r e d u e n o t i c e and a h e a r i n g p r i o r
- -
t o t h e o r d e r of abandonment. A s we r e v i e w t h e h i s t o r y of this
s e c t i o n , w f i n d t h a t it was a p a r t of " t h e G e n e r a l Highway Law"
e
a s enacted i n Chapter 72 of t h e 1 9 1 3 S e s s i o n Laws. Chapter 72,
contained various provisions with regard to t h e p r o c e d u r e t o be
f o l l o w e d upon c r e a t i n g o r a b a n d o n i n g h i g h w a y s , and i n p a r t i c u l a r ,
i n d i c a t e d a r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t c e r t a i n r e p o r t s are r e q u i r e d , n o t i c e
o f a d a t e o f h e a r i n g is r e q u i r e d , and a h e a r i n g r e q u i r e d p r i o r to
action. However, t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s r e g a r d i n g n o t ice and h e a r i n g
a s s e t f o r t h i n t h e 1 9 1 3 law were e l i m i n a t e d by s u b s e q u e n t amend-
m e n t s t o t h e highway laws. The r e s u l t was t h a t i n 1 9 4 4 , w e h a v e
t h e g e n e r a l s t a t e m e n t of s e c t i o n 1614 t h a t an o r d e r t o abandon
s h a l l n o t be v a l i d u n l e s s p r e c e d e d by d u e n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as
" p r o v i d e d i n t h i s a c t , " and t h e 1 9 3 5 c o d e s d i d n o t p r o v i d e f o r
s u c h n o t i c e and h e a r i n g . We, t h e r e f o r e , conclude t h a t the provi-
s i o n f o r due n o t i c e and h e a r i n g as d e s c r i b e d i n s e c t i o n 1614,
R.C.M. 1 9 3 5 , had b e e n e l i m i n a t e d b y s u b s e q u e n t amendments. As a
result, we have concluded t h a t no p r i o r n o t i c e and h e a r i n g was
required, and that the procedure followed by the county com-
m i s s i o n e r s i n 1 9 4 4 d i d comply w i t h t h e code s e c t i o n s as t h e n i n
effect.
A p p e l l a n t s n e x t a r g u e t h a t even i f t h e road w a s c l o s e d by t h e
c o u n t y c o m m i s s i o n e r s ' a c t i o n , t i t l e to t h e roadway d o e s n o t v e s t
i n t h e a d j o i n i n g landowners b u t remains i n t h e p u b l i c u n a f f e c t e d
by t h e d i s c o n t i n u a n c e . A s s t a t e d above, the i n t e r e s t the public
a c q u i r e d by t h e o r i g i n a l d e d i c a t i o n had t h e e f f e c t o f a n e a s e m e n t
f o r road purpose, not a f e e simple t r a n s f e r .
S e c t i o n 70-17-101, MCA, provides :
"The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s or s e r v i t u d e s
upon l a n d may be a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d a s
i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s and a r e t h e n c a l l e d
easements:
" ( 4 ) t h e right-of-way;"
The g r a n t o f an easement is t h e g r a n t of a u s e and not a
g r a n t of t i t l e t o t h e land. B o l i n g e r v. C i t y of Bozeman ( 1 9 7 2 ) ,
1 5 8 Mont. 507, 493 P.2d 1062. As the original dedication was
o n l y a g r a n t o f u s e and n o t o n e of t i t l e , t i t l e was n e v e r v e s t e d
i n the public. S i n c e t i t l e was n o t v e s t e d i n t h e p u b l i c a t a n y
t i m e , t h e r e was no t i t l e w h i c h c a n be s a i d to now r e m a i n w i t h t h e
public.
A highway which is l a w f u l l y v a c a t e d or abandoned ceases to be
a highway and, i n s o f a r as t h e p u b l i c h a s a mere e a s e m e n t of way,
t h e t i t l e r e v e r t s t o t h e owners of t h e f e e d i s c h a r g e d from t h e
servitude. 39 Am.Jur.2d Highways, 5 1 4 2 a t 514. T h i s Court
c h o o s e s t o f o l l o w t h e r u l e a d o p t e d i n a number of s t a t e s and w a s
stated i n t h e O r e g o n case of P o r t l a n d B a s e b a l l C l u b v . C i t y of
P o r t l a n d ( 1 9 3 3 ) , 1 4 2 O r . 1 3 , 1 8 P.2d 8 1 1 , 8 1 2 :
" [wlhere land has been dedicated or
appropriated f o r a public street, the fee i n
t h e s t r e e t r e m a i n s i n t h e o r i g i n a l o w n e r sub-
j e c t o n l y t o t h e p u b l i c e a s e m e n t , a n d , upon
t h e v a c a t i o n o f t h e s t r e e t , it r e v e r t s t o t h e
o w n e r of t h e a b u t t i n g p r e m i s e s f r e e d from t h e
easement."
Therefore, we hold upon abandonment that the fee in the
street r e v e r t s to the abutting landowners, with each abutting
l a n d o w n e r t a k i n g f e e from t h e e d g e o f h i s or h e r p r o p e r t y to t h e
c e n t e r of t h e s t r e e t .
A p p e l l a n t s f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t a s u b s e q u e n t p u r c h a s e r of l a n d
adj o i n i n g a dedicated roadway, where the purchase does not
i n c l u d e a n y p o r t i o n o f t h e roadway, d o e s n o t a c q u i r e a n y i n t e r e s t
therein if t h e roadway h a s b e e n c l o s e d . S e c t i o n 70-16-202, MCA,
provides: "An owner o f l a n d bounded by a r o a d or s t r e e t is p r e -
sumed to own to the center thereof, but the c o n t r a r y may be
shown." S e c t i o n 70-20-307, MCA, provides: "A t r a n s f e r of land
bounded by a highway p a s s e s t h e t i t l e of t h e p e r s o n whose e s t a t e
i s t r a n s f e r r e d t o t h e s o i l o f t h e highway i n f r o n t of t h e c e n t e r
thereof unless a different intent appears from the grant."
I n i n t e r p r e t i n g t h e above-named statutes, t h i s Court adopted
t h e m i n o r i t y r u l e t h a t a b o u n d a r y t o and w i t h t h e s i d e of a s t r e e t
c a r r i e s t h e f e e t o t h e c e n t e r of the street unless the contrary
i n t e n t a p p e a r s from t h e d e e d . McPherson v. Monegan ( 1 9 4 7 ) r 1 2 0
Mont. 454, 1 8 7 P.2d 542. W quoted
e from S a l t e r v. Jonas, 39
N.J.L. 4 6 9 , 4 7 0 , 23 Am.Rep. 229:
". . . I n o u r p r a c t i c e , i n t h e c o n v e y a n c e of
l o t s bounded by s t r e e t s , t h e p r e v a i l i n g b e l i e f
i s t h a t t h e s t r e e t to i t s c e n t r e is conveyed
w i t h t h e l o t . Among t h e mass of p e o p l e it is
undoubtedly supposed t h a t t h e street belongs
as a n a p p u r t e n a n c e , to t h e c o n t i g u o u s pro-
p e r t y , and t h a t t h e t i t l e t o t h e l a t t e r
c a r r i e s w i t h it a t i t l e to t h e f o r m e r . . ."
As plaintiffs did not argue that they are e n t i t l e d to a
decree quieting title in them under a claim of adverse
p o s s e s s i o n , w e w i l l n o t comment upon t h a t i s s u e .
R e s p o n d e n t a s k s t h a t a p p e l l a n t be o r d e r e d to pay r e s p o n d e n t ' s
attorney fees. Where t h e r e is a r e a s o n a b l e g r o u n d f o r a p p e a l , a
respondent is not entitled to recover damages under Rule 32,
M.R.App.Civ.P. Erdman v. C & C Sales, Inc. ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 1 7 6 Mont.
1 7 7 , 1 8 4 , 577 P.2d 55, 59. Here, t h e o w n e r s h i p of t h e l a n d was
reasonably in issue, and the respondent's request for attorney
f e e s on a p p e a l m u s t be d e n i e d .
Af f i r m e d .