Montana Power Co. v. Carey ( 1985 )

No. 84-529
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1985
THE MONTANA POWER COPIPANY, A Montana
corporation,
Plaintiff,
MARTIN CAREY, WALT DUTTON , JESSIE
S. FELSHEIM, SUSMTPJE L. HUCKABA,
MARY LEAVITT, et al.
Defendants and Appellants,
and
IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION
FOR BENEFICIAL WATER USE PERMIT
NO. 24921-s41e by REMI & BETTY
JO MONFORTOW,
Petitioners and Respondents.
APPEAL FROM: District Court of the First Judicial District,
In and for the County of Lewis & Clark,
The Eonorable W. W. Lessley, Judge presiding.
COUNSEL OF RECORD:
For Appellants:
W. William Leaphart argued for Buckaba & Felsheim,
Helena, Montana
John R. Kline, Helena, Montana
For Respondents:
P4oore, Rice, O'Connell & Refling; Perry J. Moore
argued for Monfortons, Bozeman, Montana
For Amicus Curiae:
Gough, Shanahan, Johnson & Waterman; R. Paul Stahl
argued for Montana Power, Helena, PIontana
Ted Doney, Helena, Montana
Submitted: April 17, 1985
Decided: June 6, 1985
-
Clerk
M r . J u s t i c e J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e
Court.
T h i s a p p e a l a r i s e s f r o m an o r d e r o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t o f t h e S t a t e o f Montana, in
and f o r t h e County o f Lewis and C l a r k , which d e n i e d a t t o r n e y
f e e s t o S u s a n n e Huckaba a n d J e s s i e S. Felsheim, appellants,
u n d e r s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA.
Remi and Betty Jo Monforton (hereinafter Monfortons)
a p p l i e d t o t h e Department o f N a t u r a l R e s o u r c e s and Conserva-
tion ( h e r e i n a f t e r DNRC) f o r a w a t e r u s e p e r m i t t o a p p r o p r i a t e
water f r o m Cold S p r i n g s , a t r i b u t a r y o f t h e Boulder River.
The Montana Power Company ( h e r e i n a f t e r MPC) and a p p e l l a n t s ,
filed objections to the application. On March 1, 1982,
f o l l o w i n g a p u b l i c h e a r i n g w h e r e a p p e l l a n t s and a l l o b j e c t o r s
w e r e r e p r e s e n t e d , t h e DNRC i s s u e d a f i n a l o r d e r g r a n t i n g t h e
p e r m i t c o n d i t i o n e d upon s p e c i f i c r e s t r i c t i o n s .
In April, 1982, the Monfortons filed a petition for
judicial review of the DNRC's final order and sought to
remove the conditions on the permit. Likewise, MPC, an
objector t o the application, filed a petition f o r judic.ia1
review of the DNRC's final order. The petitions A'F~Y.E~
consolidated. Following a hearing on the petitions, the
District Court ruled that the time limitations and other
requirements placed upon the Monforton permit by the DNRC
s u b s t a n t i a l l y p r e j u d i c e d t h e Monfortons' right t o appropriate
water. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t i m p o s e d a t t o r n e y f e e s upon M C a n d
P
appellants. The appellants and MC
P appealed the District
Court decision t o t h i s Court. I n Montana Power Company v .
Carey (Mont. 19841, 685 P.2d 336, 41 St.Rep. 1233, the
District Court order was reversed and the DNRC o r d e r was
reinstated. As t o attorney fees, t h i s Court s t a t e d t h a t t h e
M o n f o r t o n s w e r e n o t t h e " p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y " and t h u s , w e r e n o t
entitled t o attorney fees. The a p p e l l a n t s t h e n p e t i t i o n e d
t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r an award of attorney fees i n their
favor contending t h a t they, r a t h e r t h a n t h e Monfortons, were
the "prevailing party" under section 85-2-125, MCA.
A p p e l l a n t s ' p e t i t i o n was d e n i e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t .
On appeal, w are concerned w i t h one issue. Whether
a p p e l l a n t s a r e e n t i t l e d t o an award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s under
s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA.
The a p p e l l a n t s maintain because the Monfortons' claim
for attorney fees was denied in Montana Power Company v.
Carey, supra, 685 P.2d a t 341, t h e Monfortons w e r e n o t t h e
"prevailing party." Moreover, because t h e Montana Supreme
Court ruled in their f a v o r by r e v e r s i n g t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t
r u l i n g which increased t h e water right application, appel-
lants submit t h a t they ultimately prevailed i n t h i s matter
and t h e r e f o r e w e r e e n t i t l e d t o a t t o r n e y f e e s .
The question regarding attorney fees was fully
c o n s i d e r e d , d e t e r m i n e d and a d j u d g e d i n Montana Power Company
v. Carey, supra. The final paragraph in that decision
stated:
"In conjunction with t h i s ruling, t h e
Monforton's [ s i c ] claim f o r attorney
f e e s must be d e n i e d . Since t h e f i n a l
o r d e r o f t h e DNRC i s a f f i r m e d , the
Monfortons a r e n o t t h e p r e v a i l i n g p a r t y
and c a n n o t r e c o v e r a t t o r n e y f e e s from
t h e respondents." Montana Power Company
v . C a r e y , 685 P.2d a t 341.
The District Court's d e c i s i o n was reversed. WE! h o l d w i t h
this action, e v e r y i s s u e i n c l u d i n g t h e q u e s t i o n o f award of
a t t o r n e y f e e s was d e t e r m i n e d . The judgment o f t h i s C o u r t i s
conclusive. I t a p p l i e s t o a l l subsequent s t a g e s of t h e cause
including appellants' p e t i t i o n t o t h e D i s t r i c t Court f o r t h e
award o f a t t o r n e y f e e s . C e n t r a l Montana S t o c k y a r d s v . F r a s e r
( 1 9 5 7 ) , 133 Mont. 1 6 8 , 320 P.2d 981; Brennan v . Jones (1936),
1 0 1 Mont. 550, 5 5 P.2d 697; I n Re S m i t h ' s E s t a t e ( 1 9 2 1 ) , 60
Mont. 276, 1 9 9 P. 696.
The Montana P o w e r Company, appearing a s amicus curiae
a r g u e s t h a t s e c t i o n 85-2-125, MCA, i s u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l . This
Court w i l l not entertain issues on constitutionality of a
s t a t u t o r y p r o v i s i o n when s u c h i s s u e s are n o t raised by t h e
parties t o the action.
"Since a m i c i c u r i a e a r e n o t p a r t i e s and
c a n n o t assume t h e f u n c t i o n s o f p a r t i e s ,
n o r c r e a t e , extend o r e n l a r g e i s s u e s , we
have considered t h e b r i e f s o f amici only
insofar a s they coincide with t h e issues
r a i s e d by t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e action.
S e e L o n g v. O ' D e l l ( 1 9 6 2 ) , 60 Wash.2d.
1 5 1 , 372 P.2d 548; C i t y of P h o e n i x v.
P h o e n i x C i v i c Aud. a n d Con. C e n t . A s s ' n .
( 1 9 6 5 ) , 9 9 A r i z . 2 7 0 , 408 P.2d 8 1 8 , r e h .
den. 100 A r i z . 101, 412 P.2d 43."
M o n t a n a W i l d l i f e F e d e r a t i o n v. Sager
(Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 6 2 0 P . 2 d 1 1 8 9 , 3 7 S t . R e p .
1897.
The judgment o f t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
We concur: /