City of Missoula v. Mountain Water Co., 417 P.3d 321

Mountain Water operated Missoula-area water system; City of Missoula filed condemnation action May 5, 2014 and a preliminary order issued June 15, 2015 (affirmed on appeal).
Condemnation commissioners later valued the system (including improvements) at about $88.6 million; Mountain Water sought interest based on summons date valuation.
District Court initially denied post-summons (statutory) interest, concluding the City never obtained interlocutory possession under § 70-30-311, MCA.
Parties entered a settlement (June 5, 2017) providing the City would pay Mountain Water directly and take possession upon payment; Final Judgment adopted that settlement and transfer occurred upon payment on June 22, 2017.
Mountain Water renewed its request for post-summons interest and discretionary interest; the District Court denied both and Mountain Water appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Mountain Water is entitled to statutory post-summons interest under § 70-30-302(2) read with § 70-30-311	Mountain Water: statutory interest is mandatory because the City took possession (interlocutory or constructive) so interest runs from summons date	City: § 70-30-311 requires payment into court and interlocutory possession; City paid directly per settlement and did not obtain possession until final judgment	Court: No. The City did not obtain interlocutory possession under § 70-30-311 (no payment into court; possession occurred at final judgment), so statutory interest not available
Whether Mountain Water is entitled to discretionary interest (City of Billings line)	Mountain Water: alternatively requests discretionary interest because it allegedly lost economic use earlier	City: Mountain Water retained economic use and revenue; Billings is distinguishable	Court: No. Billings (constructive possession of vacant land) is inapplicable; Mountain Water retained economic use and was compensated for improvements
Whether reliance on federal case Kirby was improper	Mountain Water: district court improperly relied on Kirby v. United States to deny interest	City: district court properly applied Montana law; Kirby peripheral	Court: District Court considered Montana statutes; Kirby did not control outcome and Mountain Water's objection fails

City of Billings v. Hunt, 257 Mont. 99, 847 P.2d 715 (Mont. 1993) (recognizes constructive possession/interest for owners deprived of all economic use; discretionary, case-by-case inquiry)
K&R P'ship v. City of Whitefish, 344 Mont. 336, 189 P.3d 593 (Mont. 2008) (interpreting interplay of §§ 70-30-302 and 70-30-311 regarding interlocutory possession and interest)
Bozeman Parking Comm'n v. First Trust Co., 190 Mont. 107, 619 P.2d 168 (Mont. 1980) (§ 70-30-311 is an exception permitting pre-judgment possession upon payment into court)
Mt. Water Co. v. Dep't of Revenue, 387 Mont. 394, 394 P.3d 922 (Mont. 2017) (discusses when a taking occurs for possession/title questions)
Kirby Forest Indus. Inc. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1984) (federal view that post-valuation appreciation is not typically remedied by interest but by post-judgment relief such as Rule 60(b))