Myers v. Dee
2011 MT 244
Mont.2011Background
- Myers sought to condemn a private road through Dees' tract B to access Myers' tract A following a partition action.
- The district court awarded Myers only a portion of tract A and denied access across tract B, ruling Myers had no usable easement.
- Myers later sued to condemn the Dees' tract B property under eminent domain §§ 70-30-102(36) and -107, MCA, claiming a cabin on his property constitutes a residence.
- The cabin on Myers' land is dilapidated, uninhabitable, without windows/doors, water, or sanitation, and has not been lived in for decades.
- The district court required a prima facie showing of a current residence or farm before a jury trial on necessity and damages, and granted summary judgment for the Dees when Myers failed to make that showing.
- This Court affirmed, holding that the statutes require proof of an existing farm or residence for application of eminent domain in this context.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 70-30-102(36) require proof of an existing farm or residence? | Myers argues the statute does not require current use. | Dees contend the statute requires presently existing farm or residence. | Yes; the statute requires an existing farm or residence. |
| Are the existence of a farm/residence and the necessity for a road jury questions? | The necessity intertwined with existence should be jury-determined. | If no residence exists, no jury issue on necessity is created. | The existence/necessity questions are generally for a jury, but here no residence exists to satisfy § 70-30-102(36). |
Key Cases Cited
- Groundwater v. Wright, 180 Mont. 27 (Mont. 1979) (define farm for eminent domain; necessity must be shown)
- Richter v. Rose, 289 Mont. 379 (Mont. 1998) (define farm/residence; plain meaning application)
- Szafryk, In re Marriage of Szafryk, 356 Mont. 141 (Mont. 2010) (summary-judgment standard; correct result is sufficient)
- Wells Fargo Bank v. Talmage, 336 Mont. 125 (Mont. 2007) (summary judgment process and factual questions)
- Ravalli County v. Erickson, 320 Mont. 31 (Mont. 2004) (use of dictionary/definition in statutory interpretation)