Preview:

No.

13623

I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF M N A A F O T N
1977

VIOLET SIMMONS, P l a i n t i f f and A p p e l l a n t ,

-vsCITY O GLENDIVE, MONTANA, F

et al.,

Defendants and Respondents.

Appeal from:

D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Seventh J u d i c i a l District, H o n o r a b l e M. James S o r t e , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g .

Counsel of Record: For Appellant: C a l t o n a n d S t e p h e n s , B i l l i n g s , Montana R o b e r t L . S t e p h e n s a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana For Respondents: R i c h a r d A . :SZmonton a r g u e d , G l e n d i v e , Montana J e r r y D. Cook, G l e n d i v e , Montana
--

S u b m i t t e d : S e p t e m b e r 21, 1977

Filed:

' f UTL 'L

*!

,

2 q3 v 1

M r . J u s t i c e Daniel J . Shea d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court.

P l a i n t i f f V i o l e t Simmons appeals from a judgment e n t e r e d i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court, Dawson County, i n f a v o r of defendants t h e C i t y of Glendive, Montana, and s e v e r a l of i t s o f f i c i a l s . P l a i n t i f f brought t h i s a c t i o n i n 1971, seeking damages f o r a l l e g e d wrongful and i l l e g a l t e r m i n a t i o n of water s e r v i c e s t o p r o p e r t y she owned i n Glendive.
A t t h a t time t h e C i t y of

Glendive operated a c i t y water system and s u p p l i e d and d i s t r i b u t e d water s e r v i c e s t o r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n t h e c i t y . On A p r i l 1 2 , 1976,

following t r i a l b e f o r e t h e c o u r t w i t h o u t a j u r y , t h e D i s t r i c t Court e n t e r e d f i n d i n g s of f a c t and conclusions of law i n f a v o r of d e f e n d a n t s , h e r e i n a f t e r r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e C i t y . Plaintiff

moved t o s e t a s i d e t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions o r a l t e r n a t i v e l y , f o r a new t r i a l . These motions were denied. Judgment was

entered against p l a i n t i f f .

T h i s a p p e a l followed.

I n 1958, p l a i n t i f f began b u i l d i n g a s t r u c t u r e a t t h e r e a r of a l o t she owned i n Glendive. On t h e f r o n t p o r t i o n of t h i s l o t

was a f o u r - p l e x apartment b u i l d i n g owned by p l a i n t i f f comprising Nos. 314, 314 1 1 2 , 316 and 316 112 West Brennan S t r e e t . The

s t r u c t u r e a t t h e r e a r of t h i s l o t o r i g i n a l l y was t o be a g a r a g e , b u t a t some p o i n t during i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n p l a i n t i f f decided t o make i t a r e s i d e n c e . Water and sewer l i n e s were placed between

t h e C i t y ' s main l i n e and t h i s s t r u c t u r e j u s t a f t e r c o n s t r u c t i o n s t a r t e d . . T h e l i n e s were hooked up and t h e water s e r v i c e became o p e r a t i v e some y e a r s l a t e r when t h e s t r u c t u r e was f i r s t used a s a home. P l a i n t i f f thought t h e house was r e c e i v i n g water from t h e

metered l i n e running i n t o t h e f o u r - p l e x - when, i n f a c t , i t was r e c e i v i n g unmetered water d i r e c t l y from t h e C i t y ' s main l i n e .

I n 1969 t h e City discovered t h e small house was r e c e i v i n g water n o t paid f o r , because i t was not metered. The mayor then i n s t r u c t e d

t h e c i t y meter man t o inform p l a i n t i f f she was v i o l a t i n g a c i t y ordinance by receiving unmetered water, and t o make arrangements f o r t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n of a water meter a t t h e house. While t h e r e

i s a d i s p u t e i n t h e testimony a s t o what occurred when t h e meter man attempted t o i n s t a l l t h e meter, i t i s c l e a r p l a i n t i f f refused i n s t a l l a t i o n when i t was o f f e r e d . Water s e r v i c e t o t h e small house was c u t o f f on t h e mayor's order when he learned p l a i n t i f f had refused t o allow i n s t a l l a t i o n of t h e water meter. The City then prepared a b i l l f o r t h e water I t determined water s e r v i c e

p l a i n t i f f had received a t t h e house.

had been supplied, b u t not paid f o r , from September 30, 1959 t o May 26, 1969. P l a i n t i f f refused t o pay t h i s b i l l claiming she received water a t t h e small house f o r only 7 y e a r s , r a t h e r than t h e n e a r l y 10 years f o r which she was b i l l e d . P l a i n t i f f remained i n t h e She t e s t i f i e d

house a f t e r t h e termination of i t s water s e r v i c e .

t h a t f o r a year and a h a l f she hand c a r r i e d water t o t h e small house from t h e four-plex. Ultimately, p l a i n t i f f attached a hose

t o an o u t s i d e s p i g o t of t h e four-plex, and supplied water t o t h e small house by means of t h i s hose. She used t h e hose t o provide

water t o h e r house a t v a r i o u s times f o r s e v e r a l months, beginning i n t h e summer 1970. I n October 1970, t h e C i t y discovered p l a i n t i f f was supplying water t o h e r house through t h e hose. On October 16, t h e City

water c l e r k s e n t p l a i n t i f f a n o t i c e by c e r t i f i e d mail t h a t t h e use of t h e hose t o supply water t o h e r house was a v i o l a t i o n of City ordinances and Public Service Commission r e g u l a t i o n s and water

s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex would be terminated i f t h e use of t h e hose was n o t d i s c o n t i n u e d by October 26, 1970. ledged r e c e i p t of t h i s n o t i c e . P l a i n t i f f acknow-

The C i t y l a t e r l e a r n e d p l a i n t i f f

was c o n t i n u i n g t o u s e t h e hose t o supply water t o h e r house, and on October 30, 1970, water s e r v i c e t o t h e f o u r - p l e x was terminated
by the City.

Tenants l i v i n g i n t h e four-plex moved o u t w i t h i n a few days of t h e t e r m i n a t i o n of i t s water s e r v i c e s . Plaintiff re-

t a i n e d a s e r i e s of lawyers d u r i n g t h e following months, b u t was unable t o g e t water s e r v i c e r e s t o r e d t o t h e four-plex. I n the

s p r i n g 1971, p l a i n t i f f discontinued h e a t and e l e c t r i c i t y a t t h e four-plex; she t e s t i f i e d t h a t w i t h o u t r e n t a l income t h e s e u t i l i t i e s became t o o expensive t o maintain. A f t e r 1971, p l a i n t i f f made no r e q u e s t t o t h e C i t y t o r e s t o r e water s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex. She t e s t i f i e d t h a t by t h e n ,

t h e water p i p e s i n t h e four-plex were damaged and without e x t e n s i v e r e p a i r could n o t c a r r y water i f i t was r e s t o r e d . Plaintiff

brought t h i s a c t i o n on A p r i l 28, 1971, seeking damages f o r l o s t r e n t a l s and v a r i o u s expenses she a l l e g e d l y i n c u r r e d a s a consequence of t h e C i t y ' s t e r m i n a t i o n of water s e r v i c e s t o t h e f o u r plex. The i s s u e on a p p e a l i s whether t h e evidence shows t h e C i t y of Glendive, a c t i n g a s a p u b l i c u t i l i t y , exceeded i t s l a w f u l a u t h o r i t y i n t e r m i n a t i n g water s e r v i c e s t o p l a i n t i f f ' s four-plex. Resolution of t h i s q u e s t i o n t u r n s on t h e c i t y ' s purpose i n t e r minating t h e water s e r v i c e s . P l a i n t i f f contends t h e C i t y turned o f f t h e water t o t h e f o u r p l e x f o r t h e purpose of f o r c i n g h e r t o pay t h e d i s p u t e d b i l l f o r unmetered water s u p p l i e d t o h e r small house, and t o induce h e r t o i n s t a l l a meter t h e r e . While p l a i n t i f f t e s t i f i e d she knew water s e r v i c e t o t h e f o u r p l e x had been terminated because of h e r u s e of t h e hose t o supply

- 4 -

water t o t h e small house a f t e r t h e City had s h u t o f f t h e water t o t h a t s t r u c t u r e , she a l s o t e s t i f i e d she was l e d t o b e l i e v e water s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex would be r e s t o r e d i f she paid t h e d i s puted b i l l . This information a l l e g e d l y was r e l a t e d t o h e r a t

various times by a t t o r n e y s she r e t a i n e d i n t h e course of h e r e f f o r t s t o have t h i s s e r v i c e r e s t o r e d . Plaintiff also testified

t h e mayor t o l d h e r d i r e c t l y t h a t she would have t o pay t h e b i l l t o g e t t h e water turned back on a t t h e four-plex. Further, that

t h e c i t y water c l e r k t o l d one of her a t t o r n e y s , who i n t u r n t o l d p l a i n t i f f , t h a t payment of t h e b i l l would r e s u l t i n r e s t o r a t i o n of s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex. P l a i n t i f f argues t h a t i f t h e City

would have r e s t o r e d water s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex upon payment of t h e disputed b i l l f o r water supplied t o h e r small house, i t follows t h e City s h u t . o f f water t o t h e four-plex s o l e l y t o force such payment. The City concedes i t i s without a u t h o r i t y t o terminate water s e r v i c e s t o a s t r u c t u r e f o r t h e purpose of f o r c i n g t h e r e s o l u t i o n of a c o l l a t e r a l d i s p u t e n o t a f f e c t i n g t h e s t r u c t u r e . It contends

t h a t t h e evidence h e r e shows p l a i n t i f f ' s payment of t h e disputed b i l l was n o t a condition precedent t o r e s t o r a t i o n of t h e four-plex's water, but t h a t t h e s e r v i c e was terminated because p l a i n t i f f v i o l a t e d c e r t a i n r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e Public Service Commiss i o n and Glendive c i t y ordinances by providing water t o h e r house by means of t h e hose a t t a c h e d t o t h e four-plex. The mayor t e s t i f i e d t h a t s h o r t l y a f t e r s e r v i c e t o t h e fourplex was terminated, he spoke t o p l a i n t i f f and informed h e r t h a t i f she reapplied f o r s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex and removed t h e hose between i t and h e r house, t h e City would r e s t o r e s e r v i c e . The c i t y water c l e r k t e s t i f i e d t h e mayor had not i n s t r u c t e d him t o r e q u i r e p l a i n t i f f t o pay t h e disputed b i l l a s a p r e r e q u i s i t e

t o acceptance of any a p p l i c a t i o n p l a i n t i f f r e s t o r a t i o n of s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex.

might make f o r The c i t y p u b l i c works

d i r e c t o r a l s o t e s t i f i e d s t a t i n g t h a t r e s t o r a t i o n of water s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex was conditioned only on ance of h e r use of t h e hose. The n o t i c e s e n t by t h e c i t y water c l e r k t o p l a i n t i f f two weeks before termination of s e r v i c e t o t h e four-plex s t a t e . such termination would r e s u l t , i f p l a i n t i f f continued t o supply water to t o her house by means of t h e hose connected/the four-plex. There
i s no mention i n t h i s n o t i c e of t h e disputed b i l l , and no i n d i c a -

lai in tiff's

discontinu-

t i o n t h a t p l a i n t i f f ' s f a i l u r e t o pay it would t r i g g e r t h e shutoff of water t o t h e four-plex. The October 16 n o t i c e s t a t e d t h a t p l a i n t i f f was v i o l a t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e Montana Public Service Commission and a City Code by supplying water t o h e r house with t h e hose from t h e four-plex. The r e l e v a n t r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s of t h e C i t y of

Glendive Water Company, approved by t h e Public Service Commission of Montana, admitted i n t o evidence and a p p l i c a b l e a t t h e time p e r t i n e n t provided: "Rule G - 1 . Service w i l l be furnished t o any consumer who f u l l y and t r u l y s e t s f o r t h a l l t h e purposes f o r which water may be required and who agrees t o and conforms with a l l r u l e s and regula*.I1 t i o n s governing t h e s e r v i c e

***

**

o "Rule G-5. N plumber o r o t h e r person w i l l be allowed t o make connection with any conduit, pipe o r o t h e r f i x t u r e connecting therewith o r t o connect pipes when they have been disconnected, o r t o t u r n water o f f o r on, on any premises, without permission from t h e [water] company .I1

"~ule G-6. Service pipes s h a l l be so arranged t h a t t h e supply of each s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g , house o r premises may be c o n t r o l l e d by a s e p a r a t e curb cock, placed w i t h i n o r near t h e l i n e of t h e s t r e e t curb, under r u l e s e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e Water Company o r c i v i l a u t h o r i t i e s , This curb cock and box must be kept i n r e p a i r and e a s i l y a c c e s s i b l e by t h e owner of t h e premises." "Rule G-12. For v i o l a t i o n of any of t h e s e r u l e s , o r f o r nonpayment of water r e n t , f o r e i t h e r domestic, s p r i n k l i n g o r o t h e r purposes, t h e company has t h e r i g h t t o t u r n o f f t h e water without f u r t h e r n o t i c e "Rule G-13, The foregoing general r u l e s s h a l l be e f f e c t i v e f o r a l l water u t i l i t i e s operating i n Montana.

**

*.If

***

"In a d d i t i o n t o t h e general f l a t r a t e and meter r a t e r u l e s , a u t i l i t y may adopt, s u b j e c t t o t h e approval of t h e Public Service Commission, o t h e r r u l e s t o be designated a s s p e c i a l r u l e s , t o f i t l o c a l conditions. I n c a s e of any apparent c o n f l i c t i n t h e r u l e s , t h e g e n e r a l r u l e s s h a l l govern." "Rule M-9. I n no case w i l l t h e company f u r n i s h water from one meter t o two o r more houses, whether t h e same a r e owned by one person o r n o t . 11 Glendive City Ordinance Number 418, enacted i n 1928, provides i n p a r t :

Sec. 2. N plumber o r o t h e r person w i l l be o allowed t o make connections with any conduit, pipe, o r o t h e r f i x t u r e connecting therewith, o r connect pipes when they have been disconnected, o r t o t u r n water o f f o r on, on any premises without permission of t h e water department. Sec. 3 . Service pipes s h a l l be so arranged t h a t t h e supply f o r each s e p a r a t e b u i l d i n g o r house may be c o n t r o l l e d by a s e p a r a t e curb box placed a t t h e *.I1 o u t s i d e of t h e sidewalk.
I1

II

**

Having heard t h e c o n f l i c t i n g testimony a s t o t h e C i t y ' s purpose i n terminating s e r v i c e t o t h e f o u r - p l e x , the D i s t r i c t Court found t h e c i t y ' s a c t i o n was not taken t o force payment of t h e disputed b i l l . Rather, t h e a c t i o n was taken t o discourage

p l a i n t i f f from continuing t h e p r a c t i c e of supplying water t o t h e

small house from t h e four-plex, a p r a c t i c e p r o h i b i t e d by t h e quoted r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s and c i t y ordinance. I n City of Missoula v. Rose, 164 Mont. 90, 9 2 , 519 P.2d 146 (1974), t h i s Court s t a t e d : " e have c o n s i s t e n t l y held t h a t t h i s Court cannot W s u b s t i t u t e i t s weighing of t h e evidence f o r t h a t of t h e t r i a l c o u r t . When t h e r e i s a c o n f l i c t i n t h e evidence, the f i n d i n g s of t h e t r i a l c o u r t a r e presumed t o be c o r r e c t i f supported by t h e evidence most favorable The f a c t t h a t t h e r e was t o the prevailing party. a c o n f l i c t i n t h e testimony does n o t j u s t i f y a r e v e r s a l where t h e r e i s s u f f i c i e n t evidence t o support t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s f i n d i n g s of f a c t . "

***

There was s u f f i c i e n t evidence upon which t h e D i s t r i c t Court could base i t s f i n d i n g t h a t termination of water s e r v i c e s t o p l a i n t i f f ' s four-plex was not f o r t h e purpose of f o r c i n g t h e payment of t h e b i l l f o r water previously supplied t o t h e small house. W n o t e p l a i n t i f f challenged n e i t h e r t h e r u l e s and regulae t i o n s nor t h e i r e f f e c t on h e r use of a hose t o supply water metered a t one residence, t o another unmetered residence. While

a u t i l i t y may enforce reasonable r e g u l a t i o n s by terminating s e r v i c e t o a consumer who v i o l a t e s such r e g u l a t i o n s , termination should n o t be seen a s a n e c e s s a r i l y proper response i n every case. When t h e r e a r e l e s s d r a s t i c remedies a v a i l a b l e , such a s injunct i v e o r o t h e r r e l i e f , termination w i l l n o t be favored. For t h e reasons s e t f o r t h h e r e i n , t h e judgment i n t h e i n s t a n t case i s affirmed.

We Concur:

Justices.



Download d2d121ea-799c-4a8f-9708-a8d979f3f453.pdf

Montana Law