Boehm v. Park Cnty.
2018 MT 165
| Mont. | 2018Background
- Boehm owned property in a Yellowstone River floodplain and sought a permit (March 2016) to replace an unpermitted septic system; Park County initially issued a permit.
- After a new sanitarian (Caes) replaced the prior sanitarian, Caes reviewed the file, found application deficiencies, and mailed a certified letter (May 27, 2016) voiding the previously issued permit and ordering cessation of construction.
- Caes cited: (1) failure to disclose floodplain status on the application (material misrepresentation); (2) failure to address required floodplain setback; and (3) misclassification of the system as a “replacement” rather than a “new” system.
- Boehm filed a petition for writ of mandate (and a libel claim) seeking an order directing Park County to rescind the cease-and-desist/voiding of the permit. The district court granted summary judgment for the county and quashed the petition.
- The Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding mandamus was unavailable because the county had already acted and the revocation/voiding was a discretionary act tied to public-health/regulatory judgment; Boehm had administrative remedies (re-apply, seek variance, appeal to DEQ/district court) and was not denied due process.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandamus can compel Park County to rescind voiding of the permit | Boehm: county had a legal duty to refrain from voiding a valid permit; mandamus can order performance of clear legal duty | County: writ cannot undo an action already taken; mandamus is to compel, not to reverse completed discretionary acts | Denied: mandamus cannot be used to undo an act already performed; petition properly quashed |
| Whether voiding the permit was a ministerial act (mandamus-appropriate) or discretionary | Boehm: voidance was an improper ministerial revocation of a valid permit (no discretion) | County: voiding was discretionary under public-health authority and Regulations | Held discretionary: Sanitarian’s voiding tied to §50-2-116 authority and Regulations; not ministerial |
| Whether Boehm lacked an adequate remedy at law (due process/administrative remedies) | Boehm: no avenue short of mandamus; voidance deprived him of due process under cited statutes | County: County Regulations provide notice, reapplication, variance, and administrative appeals to DEQ and district court | Held: adequate administrative remedies existed; no due process deprivation found |
| Whether an abuse of discretion occurred sufficient to permit mandamus | Boehm: voiding was an abuse (overriding predecessor’s issuance) and thus subject to mandamus | County: Boehm failed to show that voiding was impermissible under the Regulations or amounted to no exercise of discretion | Held: no showing of abuse that would justify mandamus; alternative remedy is administrative appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- State ex rel. Thomas v. District Court of Seventeenth Judicial Dist., 731 P.2d 324 (Mont. 1986) (mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in rare cases)
- State ex rel. Popham v. Hamilton City Council, 604 P.2d 312 (Mont. 1979) (mandamus may not be used to undo completed discretionary government action)
- Smith v. County of Missoula, 992 P.2d 834 (Mont. 1999) (distinguishes ministerial from discretionary duties for mandamus)
- Kadillak v. Anaconda Co., 602 P.2d 147 (Mont. 1979) (mandamus appropriate where public entity failed to perform a statutorily mandated ministerial duty)