Preview:

No. 12407 I N T E SUPREME C U T O THE STATE O MONTANA H OR F F

LLOYD BARNARD, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

IRMA McINERNEY, EARL DALEY, HOWARD C R W L and JOHN MAXNESS, ON EL

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from:

D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventeenth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable A l f r e d B. Coate, Judge p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record : For Appellant : Morrison, E t t i e n and Barron, Havre, Montana J. Chan E t t i e n argued, Havre, Montana For Respondents: Gordon T. White, County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana F r a n c i s Gallagher argued, S p e c i a l A s s i s t a n t County Attorney, Glasgow, Montana Lawrence Miyasato argued, Deputy County Attorney, Glasgow , Montana ,

Submitted: Decided : Filed

May 30, 1973

-JW 2 17973

:*m11973 2

M r , J u s t i c e Wesley C a s t l e s 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 d e n i a l of a w r i t of mandamus t o compel Valley County Commissioners and School Superintendent t o a l l o w j o i n d e r of t e r r i t o r y from Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t i n Valley County, t o Saco High School D i s t r i c t i n P h i l l i p s County, Saco Elementary School D i s t r i c t 12A i s a j o i n t elementary d i s t r i c t l o c a t e d i n P h i l l i p s County and Valley County. school i s i n Saco, which i s i n P h i l l i p s County, The

R e s i d e n t s of

t h e Valley County p o r t i o n o f Saco Elementary D i s t r i c t 12A have f o r many y e a r s a l s o s e n t t h e i r high school s t u d e n t s t o Saco, though t h e i r t e r r i t o r y i s a p a r t of Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t 7C, whose high s c h o o l i s i n Hinsdale, p a r t of Valley County. V a l l e y County pays such s t u d e n t s ' t u i t i o n t o t h e Saco High School. P l a i n t i f f Lloyd Barnard and a m a j o r i t y o f h i s f e l l o w r e s i d e n t s of t h e Valley County p o r t i o n of t h e Saco Elementary D i s t r i c t 12A, being q u a l i f i e d under t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f s e c t i o n s 75-6525 and 75-6526, R.C.M. 1947, p e t i t i o n e d t h e Valley County Superinten-

d e n t f o r t r a n s f e r of t h e i r p o r t i o n t o t h e Saco High School D i s t r i c t , s t a t i n g t h e i r reasons f o r t h e baundary changes, states : " P e t i t i o n e r s r e q u e s t t h a t t h e above d e s c r i b e d l a n d s b e joined t o Saco High School D i s t r i c t #12B t o form a j o i n t High School D i s t r i c t under t h e prov i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 184 (75-6525) and 185 (75-6526) of Senate B i l l No. 1, 42nd Montana L e g i s l a t i v e Assembly, f o r t h e following reasons : That p e t i t i o n

"1. P e t i t i o n e r s a r e r e s i d e n t s , taxpayers and v o t e r s w i t h i n t h e above d e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y .
"2. There i s no high school i n Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t w i t h i n t h r e e ( 3 ) m i l e s o f t h e above described t e r r i t o r y . "3. The t a x a b l e v a l u e of t h e above d e s c r i b e d t e r r i t o r y i s about $321,000.00, "1f t h i s p e t i t i o n i s g r a n t e d , t h e remaining t a x a b l e v a l u e of Hinsdale High School D i s t r i c t would b e approximately $2,000,000.00,

"Increased costs to all of the taxpayers of the remaining Hinsdale District would be about two and onefourth (2 1/4) mills, and there would be no hazard to its continued operation. "valley County would be relieved of paying yearly tuition to Saco High School District at the rate of $300.00 per high school student in the above described territory, a present total of $1,800.00. 11A number of the petitioners have land outside said territory which would still be subject to taxation by the Hinsdale High School District.

4 There are six (6) high school students from the above described territory, all of whom go to the Saco High School,
"5. All of the elementary students from the above territory go to Saco elementary school. "6. The telephone exchange for the above described territory is Saco.
" 7 . Mail service for the above described territory is from Saco.

"8. School bus service is now provided all students from said territory to Saco.
"The average travel distance for students from said territory to Saco is six ( ) miles. 6

h he average distance to Hinsdale would be twelve (12) miles, and would cost Hinsdale District approximately $1,000.00 per year in additional bussing costs.
"Travel expense for the above students and their parents to Hinsdale for extra curricular school activities would approximately double those for Saco, estimated by one parent to be an additional $75.00 per year.

"9. Saco is the trading center for all parents and children from said territory.
"10, While taxpayers for the above described lands pay their proportionate share of taxes for Hinsdale High School District,
(a) they receive no benefit from its operation;

(b) (c)

they are deprived of all vote for Trustees; they have no voice nor vote in its operation.

"11. If said territory is established as a part of the Saco High School District, petitioners and other residents of the above described territory would; (a) (b) (c) have the right to vote for its Trustees; have representation in the Saco High School Board; in all events, would have voice and vote in Saco operations.

"12, At the present, petitioners are unable to vote for the Trustees in either the Hinsdale or Saco districts, tho supporting both district school systems by their taxes, "13. If the students within the described territory attended Hinsdale High School, bus service by Hinsdale would be in excess of the one hour trip limitation. Present bus service from Saco is well within the one hour limitation. "14, Winter bus service is often hazardous. "Bus mileage from Hinsdale being double that of Saco, would increase the risks to students fromII the described area if attending school in Hinsdale, At the hearing on the petition, the trustees and some of the residents of the other territory of the Hinsdale High School District appeared in opposition, The Valley County Superintendent found that the reasons given by petitioners were not sufficient to grant the change and denied the petition. He also found the
1I

increased burden to the taxpayers of the remainder of the Hinsdale District would be detrimental, unfair, and of consequence. Appeal was made to the Valley County Board of Commissioners and it made findings identical to those of the Superintendent, plus a projection of declining school population within the area proposed for transfer. Plaintiff then brought a writ of mandamus to the district court to compel the county officials to agree to the proposed change. The district court, upon consideration of the record before the Valley County Board of Commissioners, affirmed the Board and dismissed the writ. appeal. Although appellant lists three issues for review in his brief, we find they can be combined into two issues: (1) In From that decision, plaintiff brings this

denying the petition to transfer territory from the Hinsd.ale School District in Valley County to the Saco District in Phillips County, did the Valley County Board of Commissioners abuse its discretion?

(2) Was the district court correct in dismissing

and discharging the Alternative Writ of Mandamus?

A s t o i s s u e (1) and t h e r e a l b a s i s of t h i s appeal--was i t

an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n by t h e county o f f i c i a l s ?

In the p e t i t i o n W e

f o u r t e e n p o i n t s w e r e l i s t e d i n support of t h e proposed move.

s h a l l b r i e f l y d e a l with those p o i n t s t o determine i f t h e Valley County o f f i c i a l s abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n . Points 1 through 4 s t a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n a l matters. These

f o u r p o i n t s a r e not reasons o r grounds f o r t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e t e r r i t o r y ; they a r e requirements which must be met b e f o r e t h e p e t i t i o n can be considered. Appellant argues i n h i s b r i e f regarding point 5 t h a t t h e t u i t i o n s t a t u t e s s e c t i o n s 75-6313, 75-6314, and 75-6316, R.C,M, 1947, provide reasons f o r changing schoal d i s t r i c t boundaries o r t r a n s f e r r i n g t e r r i t o r y from one school d i s t r i c t t o another. He contends p o i n t 5 i s c o n t r o l l e d by s e c t i o n 75-6313, R.C.M. and i s t h e r e f o r e a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t t h e change. 1947,

But, we a r e n o t

concerned h e r e with t h e payment of elementary t u i t i o n , which i s t h e s u b j e c t of s e c t i o n 75-6313.
W e a r e concerned with t h e t r a n s f e r

of t e r r i t o r y from one high school d i s t r i c t t o another, a c r o s s county l i n e s , Appellant's argument i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e

f a c t s of t h e i n s t a n t case. Appellant next argues t h a t p o i n t s 6 through 9 a r e f a c t o r s recognized under s e c t i o n 75-6314, R,C.M. 1947, another elementary

t u i t i o n s t a t u t e , and t h a t t h e county superintendent was i n c o r r e c t i n n o t considering t h e s e items a s f a c t o r s r e q u i r i n g t h e t r a n s f e r of t h e t e r r i t o r y , O f t h e four p o i n t s 6 through 9 , only two Points

p o i n t s 8 and 9 a r e s p e c i f i c a l l y l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 75-6314,

6 and 7 concerning t h e telephone exchange and mail s e r v i c e a r e n o t l i s t e d i n s e c t i o n 75-6314. A s t o p o i n t s 8 and 9 which a r e

l i s t e d i n t h e s t a t u t e , w e n o t e a p p e l l a n t i s again r e l y i n g on an elementary school t u i t i o n s t a t u t e a s a reason f o r t r a n s f e r r i n g t e r r i t o r y from one high school d i s t r i c t t o another, W do n o t e

f i n d t h a t t h e Valley County o f f i c i a l s abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n i n n o t following a s t a t u t e which i s n o t a p p l i c a b l e .

Appellant a l s o r e l i e s on s e c t i o n 75-6521, R.C.M.

1947.

That

s t a t u t e d e a l s w i t h school d i s t r i c t boundary changes w i t h i n a county and has n o t h i n g t o do w i t h t h e formation of a j o i n t h i g h school d i s t r i c t . P o i n t s 10, 1 and 12 of t h e p e t i t i o n , l i s t e d a s r e a s o n s f o r 1 t r a n s f e r r i n g t h e t e r r i t o r y by a p p e l l a n t , r e l a t e t o v o t i n g r i g h t s of t h e p e t i t i o n e r s . Appellant c i t e s Box v. Duncan, 98 Mont. 216, Box - had t o do with t h e c o n s o l i d a -

2 2 3 , 38 P.2d 986, a s a u t h o r i t y .

t i o n of two high s c h o o l s w i t h i n t h e same county; t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n having been ordered by t h e county commissioners without a h e a r i n g . T h i s Court h e l d t h a t t h e a c t i o n was void because t h e c o n s o l i d a t i o n took p l a c e a t a time d u r i n g t h e y e a r when such a c t i o n on t h e p a r t
u f t h e commissioners was p r o h i b i t e d by s t a t u t e .

It i s t r u e t h a t

i n - t h i s Court s a i d t h e s i t u a t i o n t h e r e was one which would Box c o n s t i t u t e a r a t h e r extreme i n s t a n c e of t a x a t i o n without r e p r e s e n t a t i o n ; b u t t h e Court went on immediately t o q u a l i t y t h a t by saying: W do n o t assume t o s a y , f o r t h e purposes of t h i s e o p i n i o n , t h a t t h e r e s u l t s we have mentioned have any c o n t r o l l i n g e f f e c t i n t h e d e c i s i o n of t h i s a p p e a l , " W do n a t then c o n s i d e r t h e language c i t e d by a p p e l l a n t a s cone trolling, I n any e v e n t , t h e s i t u a t i o n i n Box i s n o t t h a t o f t h e
II

-

i n s t a n t case. I n t h e i n s t a n t c a s e t h e r e s i d e n t s of t h e Beaverton a r e a do

have t h e r i g h t t o v o t e upon s p e c i a l l e v i e s i n t h e Hinsdale High
School D i s t r i c t , Although i t i s t r u e they have no v o t e f o r

t r u s t e e s , t h a t came about by t h e a c t i o n of t h e Beaverton a r e a taxpayers when t h e y p e t i t i o n e d t h e i r elementary d i s t r i c t o u t of Valley County and i n t o P h i l l i p s County. Here, w e do n o t f i n d any

form of t a x a t i o n without r e p r e s e n t a t i o n and t h e r e was no abuse of d i s c r e t i o n on t h e p a r t of t h e Valley county o f f i c i a l s . P o i n t 1 3 of t h e p e t i t i o n d e a l s w i t h s t u d e n t s t r a v e l i n g i n
k2xcess of one hour on t h e bus i n o r d e r t o g e t t o school.

Appellant

r e l i e s on s e c t i o n 75-7008, R.C.M.

1947, which a g a i n d e a l s w i t h

elementzry s t u d e n t s and n o t high school s t u d e n t s a s t o bus r i d i n g time l i m i t a t i o n s , W n o t e t h a t s e c t i o n 75-7008 provides t h e e

c o n d i t i o n can be waived by t h e p a r e n t o r guardian.

But, s i n c e

t h e s t a t u t e d e a l s w i t h elementary s t u d e n t s , i t i s n o t p e r t i n e n t here, Point 14 of t h e p e t i t i o n has t o do w i t h road c o n d i t i o n s . Again, a p p e l l a n t h a s used elementary t u i t i o n s t a t u t e s a s a u t h o r i t y , Appellant argues t h a t r e a s o n s f o r paying t u i t i o n c o n s t i t u t e reasons f o r changing school d i s t r i c t boundaries o r t r a n s f e r r i n g t e r r i t o r y from one school d i s t r i c t t o a n o t h e r . Notwithstanding

a p p e l l a n t ' s argument, i t was c l e a r from t h e evidence t h a t V a l l e y County school o f f i c i a l s a r e concerned about t h e s a f e t y of t h e c h i l d r e n and do a l l i n t h e i r power t o p r o t e c t them.
A l l this

evidence was p r e s e n t e d t o t h e county s u p e r i n t e n d e n t , t h e county commissioners and t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , They made t h e i r d e c i s i o n s

t h a t t h e r e was no r e a s o n t o change t h e boundary based on t h e q u e s t i o n of danger t o t h e c h i l d r e n . W e f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e evidence

which i n d i c a t e s t h e o f f i c i a l s abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n i n making t h a t decision. W have reviewed t h e p e t i t i o n and t h e o r d e r denying t h a t e petition.
A s s t a t e d h e r e t o f o r e our review goes t o t h e q u e s t i o n

of whether t h e V a l l e y County o f f i c i a Is abused t h e i r d i s c r e t i o n . W f i n d n o t h i n g i n t h e r e c o r d which would i n d i c a t e any abuse of e discretion. The second i s s u e on a p p e a l concerns whether t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n d i s m i s s i n g and d i s c h a r g i n g t h e A l t e r n a t i v e
W r i t of Mandamus.

The d i s t r i c t c o u r t , i n e f f e c t , s u s t a i n e d t h e

a c t i o n of t h e Valley County o f f i c i a l s by d i s m i s s i n g t h e w r i t . This i s n o t a c a s e where t h e Valley County o f f i c i a l s were t o perform a m i n i s t e r i a l duty. discretion, Rather, t h e d u t y was t o e x e r c i s e

The f u n c t i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was t o determine

whether o r n o t t h e V a l l e y County o f f i c i a l s m a n i f e s t l y abused t h a t discretion, The g e n e r a l r u l e and t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n of t h e g e n e r a l r u l e w i t h r e s p e c t t o mandamus a c t i o n s was c l e a r l y s e t f o r t h by t h i s Court i n P a r a d i s e Rainbow v , F i s h & Game Comm'n, 148 Mont. 412,

"As a general r u l e mandamus i s a v a i l a b l e only t o compel performance of a c l e a r l e g a l duty n o t involving d i s c r e t i o n , McCarten v , Sanderson, 1 1 Mont, 407, 109 P.2d 1108, 132 A . L . R . 1229. 1 I But even where d i s c r e t i o n i s involved, i f t h e r e has been such an abuse a s t o amount t o no e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n a t a l l , mandamus w i l l l i e t o compel Skaggs t h e proper e x e r c i s e of t h e powers granted.' Drug Center v. Mont. Liquor Control Board, 146 Mont. 115, 124, 404 P,2d 511, 516. This, c o u r t has i n d i c a t e d t h a t a r b i t r a r y o r c a p r i c i o u s a c t i o n by an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e board i s an abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . S t a t e ex r e l . Sanders v. H i l l ( P . E . R , S . ) , 141 Mont. 558, 381 P,2d 475."

I n E r i e v. S t a t e Hwy. Comm'n, 154 Mont. 150, 153, 461 P,2d 207, t h i s Court held:

sa he r u l e simply put i s t h a t a board may be enjoined from a c t i n g o u t s i d e t h e scope of i t s a u t h o r i t y and such board may be compelled t o perform an a c t i t i s l e g a l l y bound t o perform; b u t n e i t h e r of t h e s e e x t r a o r d i n a r y remedies w i l l l i e t o c o n t r o l t h e d i s c r e t i o n of a board u n l e s s i t has been c l e a r l y shown 1 I t h a t t h e board has manifestly abused such d i s c r e t i o n .
It i s c l e a r t h a t t h e remedy sought i n t h e i n s t a n t case

w i l l l i e only when i t i s shown t h a t t h e r e has been a manifest abuse of d i s c r e t i o n . no such abuse. F e have examined t h a t question and f i n d b

Therefore, t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t was c o r r e c t i n

denying t h e A l t e r n a t i v e W r i t of Mandamus. The d e c i s i o n of t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s affirmed.

Associate J u s t i c e s .



Download 2991d3d2-6701-4ba5-a0f9-17b302195323.pdf

Montana Law