Spencer v. Flathead County , 212 Mont. 399 ( 1984 )


Menu:
  •                                  No. 84-122
    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
    1984
    GARY LEE SPEIJCER and GAYLE
    SPENCER, husband and wife,
    Plaintiffs and Respondents,
    FLATHEAD COUNTY, a political
    subdivision of the State of
    Montana, and STATE OF MONTANA,
    Defendants and Appellants.
    APPEAL FROM:   District Court of the Nineteenth Judicial ~istrict,
    In and for the County of Lincoln,
    The Honorable Robert M. Holter, Judge presiding.
    COUNSEL OF RECORD:
    For Appellants:
    Murphy, Robinson, Heckathorn & Phillips; Kalispell,
    Montana
    Ted Lympus, County Attorney, Kalispell, Montana
    Murray Kaufman, Vidal & Gordon, Kalispell, Montana
    -me&.-:,                                 :   :   L   !   -
    For Respondents:
    Sverdrup   &   Spencer, Libby, Montana
    Submitted on Briefs:       May 31, 1984
    Decided: September 27, 1984
    Mr. Justice Daniel J.      Shea delivered the Opinion of the
    Court.
    Flathead County and the State of Montana. appeal from an
    order of the Lincoln County District Court denying their
    request for a change of venue from Lincoln County to Flathead
    County.     The trial court held that it was proper to bring
    this action in Lincoln County as that is where plaintiff Gary
    Lee Spencer was mistakenly arrested.     We affirm.
    Venue in actions brought by nongovernmental entities
    against counties is determined by section 2-9-312(2), MCA,
    which establishes venue in either the county where the cause
    of action arose, or where the county being sued is located.
    This lawsuit, filed. in Lincoln County after Gary Lee
    Spencer was arrested at his home in Lincoln County, charges
    the defendants with wrongful arrest and invasion of privacy.
    Flathead County had issued a warrant for his arrest after
    receiving    erroneous   information   from   the   Parent   Locator
    Service of the State of Montana, concerning a nonsupport
    claim against another person named Gary Lee Spencer.           Upon
    discovering the mistake, the charges against plaintiff were
    dismissed.
    Before trial, the defendants filed a motion seeking a
    change in venue     from Lincoln County to Flathead County,
    claiming that section 25-2-106, MCA, controls the venue of
    actions brought by nongovernmental entities against counties,
    and establishes venue exclusively where the county being sued
    is located.     However, as we held in Hutchinson v. Moran
    (Mont. 1983), 
    673 P.2d 818
    , 40 St.Rep. 2081, the authority of
    a private entity to sue a county now exists solely by virtue
    of 1972 Mont. Const., Art. 11, 5 18, and the venue of such
    actions is determined by the more recently enacted section
    2-9-312(2), MCA.       This new venue statute, enacted in 1973
    states:
    "(1) Actions against the State shall be brought in
    the county in which the cause of action arose or in
    Lewis and Clark County. In a.ddition, a resident of
    the State may bring an action in the county of his
    residence.
    "(2) Actions against a political subdivision shall
    he brought in the county in which the cause of
    action arose or in any county where the political
    subdivision is located."
    Counties are specifically included within the definition
    of a    "political subdivision" by    section 2-9-101(5), MCA.
    In suits brought by private entities against counties,
    the new venue statute, section 2-9-312(2), MCA, supersedes
    the venue provision contained in section 25-2-106, MCA, and
    exclusively determines the venue of such actions.    Hutchinson
    v. Moran, supra.
    The new venue    statute gives the plaintiffs in this
    action the option of suing Flathead County in either the
    county where the cause of action arose or in Flathead County.
    The plaintiffs properly argue that the cause of action arose
    in Lincoln County.     Where a cause of action arises is to be
    determined by inquiring where the act or breach occurs which
    creates the necessity for bringing the suit.         Bergin v.
    Temple (1941), 
    111 Mont. 539
    , 
    111 P.2d 286
    .   In this case,
    the act giving rise to the complaint--the allegedly illegal
    arrest--occurred in Lincoln County, and that is where the
    cause of action arose.
    Under the more recent statute, section 2-9-312(2), MCA,
    venue in this action is proper in either Lincoln County or
    Flathead County.   The plaintiffs chose Lincoln County.
    The order of the Lincoln County District Court denying
    Flathead County's request for a change of venue is affirmed.
    We Concur:
    '~~vP~QJLc~cPo
    Chief Justice
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 84-122

Citation Numbers: 212 Mont. 399, 687 P.2d 1390

Judges: Harrison, Haswell, Morrison, Shea, Sheehy

Filed Date: 9/27/1984

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023