Wohl v. City of Missoula
2013 MT 46
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Plaintiffs are landowners whose properties abut South Avenue in Missoula; dispute concerns the width of the public right-of-way.
- City annexed the area and expanded South Avenue; improvements were completed in 2005 that extended beyond a 60-foot right-of-way.
- Four plats from 1904–1911 dedicated approximately 60 feet of right-of-way centered on the section line; the face of the plats show South Avenue as 60 feet wide at two points.
- A retracement survey (McCarthy) suggested excess land beyond 60 feet due to alignment with old block measurements, creating a dispute over the actual right-of-way width.
- District Court held South Avenue is 60 feet wide; recognized excess land exists outside the 60-foot right-of-way but not part of the easement; awarded partial just compensation and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court erred in 60-foot width determination | Wohl contends excess land belongs to South Avenue as right-of-way wider than 60. | City argues retracement shows excess land within the right-of-way or that width is not fixed at 60. | South Avenue is 60 feet wide. |
| Whether Landowners are entitled to compensation for a taking | Excess land encroached by city-improvements constitutes a taking requiring compensation. | Improvements exceeded the right-of-way but no taking occurred; landowners not entitled to compensation. | Landowners are entitled to compensation for the taking. |
| Whether the district court used an incorrect measure of compensation | Value should reflect land value at time of seizure (April 2005) rather than later sale price. | Post-taking market values or later sales may be used; the 22.52 per square foot figure is applicable. | District court used an incorrect measure; remand for recalculation using value at seizure date. |
| Whether Landowners may recover costs and attorney's fees | Constitutional provisions authorize recovery of costs and reasonable attorney’s fees. | Argues against recovery under the constitution or statutory rules; limits apply. | Yes; award upheld, with remand on certain fee aspects. |
| Whether the district court abused its discretion regarding fees-for-fees and passage-through of costs | Landowners’ counsel should be allowed to pass through Beal’s fees related to underlying expenses. | McGuckin/Slack framework limits these costs as to who bears them; extraordinary circumstances required. | Partial reversal; remand to determine costs/fees related to underlying expenses that may be passed to clients. |
| Whether the district court erred in denying damages under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988 | Federal civil-rights damages should be awarded for intentional constitutional harms. | No additional damages beyond just compensation; federal claims lack basis for extra relief. | District court did not award additional §1983/1988 damages; affirmed denial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Vaught v. McClymond, 116 Mont. 542, 155 P.2d 612 (1945) (monument precedence over plat where monuments exist)
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) (physical invasion constitutes a taking)
- Williamson County Reg'l Plan. Commn. v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985) (takings requirements and just compensation framework)
- McGuckin v. Dept. of Highways, 242 Mont. 81, 788 P.2d 926 (1990) (fees-for-fees framework in condemnation actions)
- Slack v. Department of Transportation, 2001 MT 137, 305 Mont. 488, 29 P.3d 503 (2001) (extraordinary circumstances for fee-shifting in condemnation)
- K&R Partnership v. City of Whitefish, 2008 MT 228, 344 Mont. 336, 189 P.3d 593 (2008) (fee-shifting and costs in condemnation context)