John R. ALBEE and Phyllis A. Albee, individually and as trustees of the Albee Living Trust, Plaintiffs-Respondents-Cross Appellants, v. Steven A. JUDY, Mayor, Ron Edinger, Chris Copstead, Deanna Goodlander, Dixie Reid, Susan Servick, Nancy Sue Wallace, Council Members, The City of Coeur D‘Alene, Defendants-Appellants-Cross Respondents.
No. 26122.
Supreme Court of Idaho.
Aug. 20, 2001.
31 P.3d 248
Coeur D‘Alene, April 2001 Term.
Finally, Stafford contends that the grant of summary judgment does not adhere to the principle of res judicata because, under Weaver v. Stafford, supra, the boundary is the metes and bounds description contained in his deed. The holding in Weaver, however, applies only to the southwest boundary. 134 Idaho at 697, 8 P.3d at 1240. Any implication Weaver would have for tracing the rest of the property by the metes and bounds description is negated by the parties’ agreement to set the boundary. Once the parties set the uncertain boundary, they were no longer entitled to the metes and bounds descriptions of their deeds.
B. Weaver is not entitled to attorney fees on appeal.
Weaver requests attorney fees on appeal pursuant to
IV.
CONCLUSION
The district court properly granted summary judgment for Weaver. Weaver is awarded costs, but not attorney fees, on appeal.
Justices SCHROEDER, KIDWELL, EISMANN and Judge Pro Tem HART, CONCUR.
Penland & Munther, Boise, for respondents. Forrest R. Goodrum argued.
TROUT, Chief Justice.
This is an appeal from the district court‘s grant of partial summary judgment in favor of John and Phyllis Albee (“the Albees“), obligating the City of Coeur d‘Alene (“the City“) to provide water service to their property, and grant of partial summary judgment in favor of the City dismissing the Albees’ cause of action for violation of civil rights pursuant to
I.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The Albees own Lots 6 and 7 in Block One of the subdivision Springview Terrace, in Kootenai County. The subdivision and property are outside the municipal boundaries of the City of Coeur d‘Alene.
The Springview Terrace subdivision was developed during the 1960‘s. In order to obtain a water supply for the subdivision, MC Inc. (“Developer“) sought an extension of a water pipeline from Idaho Water Company. At that time, Idaho Water Company was the public water utility holding a franchise for the area where the subdivision was located. On January 22, 1965, Idaho Water Company and the Developer entered into an agreement (“1965 Agreement“) wherein Idaho Water Company agreed to extend a water main to the proposed subdivision. In exchange, the Developer agreed to pay a portion of the cost, perform excavation, lay pipe and backfill the area. The 1965 Agreement also provided that Idaho Water Company would refund a portion of the money paid by the Developer for each connection to the water main for the first five years, not to exceed $4,923.60. Upon completion, the water main was turned over to Idaho Water Company to become part of their water distribution system. On December 19, 1968, the Kootenai County Commissioners and the Kootenai Health Officer approved the Springview Terrace subdivision, and the Kootenai County Recorder recorded the plat.
On December 28, 1974, the City purchased the water company property of the Idaho Water Company‘s Coeur d‘Alene division. Following the purchase of the water company, the City continued to provide water service to those lots that had been previously connected.
In 1981, the Albees purchased Lot 6 in Springview Terrace, which had an existing house and a complete water system connected to the main water line.
In 1982, the City adopted Resolution 82-61, which outlined the City‘s policy concerning water services to property outside the municipal boundaries. Pursuant to the Resolution, the City included the Water Service Area and Main Extension Policies in the rules and regulations for the operation of the City water department. Resolution 82-61 provides, in part, that the City‘s water services would not be extended beyond the municipal boundaries unless the property fell within one of the enumerated exceptions to the policy.
In 1986, the Albees purchased Lot 7 in Springview Terrace. Lot 7 did not, and does not, have a complete water system installed. On June 4, 1997, the Albees made application to the Mayor and Council of the City of Coeur d‘Alene for permission to connect to the water main adjacent to Lot 7. The City Council denied the Albees’ request.
On May 10, 1999, the Albees filed a complaint against the City, its Mayor and City Council, alleging the City is obligated, as purchaser of the Idaho Water Company, to provide water service to the Albees’ property. The Albees further claimed the denial of
II.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
This Court‘s review of a trial court‘s ruling on a motion for summary judgment is the same standard used by the trial court in originally ruling on the motion. Sun Valley v. Rosholt, Robertson & Tucker, 133 Idaho 1, 3, 981 P.2d 236, 238 (1999) (citing Friel v. Boise City Hous. Auth., 126 Idaho 484, 887 P.2d 29 (1994)). Pursuant to
III.
DISCUSSION
A. The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of the Albees, obligating the City to provide water to Lot 7.
The district court granted summary judgment, requiring the City to provide water service to the Albees’ property, based on City Resolution 82-61, which incorporated Exhibit B including Paragraph 9, which states:
No new water service shall be provided to property outside the City limits except for that property having prior approval in the form of a subdivision, with complete water system installed, (approved prior to February 3, 1981), consumer orders, property abutting or adjoining mains installed under refundable water extension contracts, or other written agreements.
(emphasis in the original). Specifically, the district court found the Albees’ property was entitled to water service under the exceptions listed in the Resolution because it “is property abutting or adjoining a main installed under a refundable water extension contract.”
There is no dispute that Lot 7 is outside the City limits, or that it abuts a main water line. However, the City argues the district court erred in concluding the 1965 Agreement was a “refundable water extension contract” and, even if the 1965 Agreement were such a contract, the City‘s interpretation of the Resolution would not include the Albees’ property within the exception.1
1. The 1965 Agreement is a “refundable water extension contract.”
As noted above, Idaho Water Company and the Developer entered into the 1965
[W]hen each subsequent consumer of water whose property is adjacent to said line has been connected to said pipe line ..., and has become a customer of Idaho Water company, said Corporation will pay to [Developer] the sum of ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($100) and shall continue said payment as service connections are made until the sum of Four-Thousand Nine-Hundred Twenty-Three and 60/100 ($4,923.60) has been paid to the [Developer], provided and with exception, however, that if at the end of a period of five years from the date thereof, the sufficient customers have not been connected to said line to aggregate the sum of Four-Thousand Nine-Hundred Twenty-Three and 60/100 ($4,923.60) then the amount theretofore paid by the Corporation shall be considered as payment in full for the pipe line....
Construction of the meaning of a contract begins with the language of the contract. “If the contract‘s terms are ‘clear and unambiguous, the determination of the contract‘s meaning and legal effect are questions of law ... and the meaning of the contract and intent of the parties must be determined from the plain meaning of the contract‘s own words.‘” Taylor v. Browning, 129 Idaho 483, 489, 927 P.2d 873, 879 (1996) (quoting City of Idaho Falls v. Home Indemnity Co., 126 Idaho 604, 607, 888 P.2d 383, 386 (1995)). If, however, the contract is determined to be ambiguous, “the interpretation of the document is a question of fact which focuses upon the intent of the parties.” Ada County Assessor v. Taylor, 124 Idaho 550, 553, 861 P.2d 1215, 1218 (1993). The threshold question of whether the contract is ambiguous is one of law and subject to free review by this Court. Id. (citing Bondy v. Levy, 121 Idaho 993, 996-97, 829 P.2d 1342, 1345-46 (1992)).
The plain language of the contract requires the Developer to compensate Idaho Water Company for the cost of the pipeline and to perform the excavation, pipe laying, and backfilling. Upon completion, demonstrated in part by the Developer being “refunded ... for the first consumer whose property is adjacent to said line,” the pipeline belonged to Idaho Water company to be maintained and operated by them. The above quoted language further provides that for “each subsequent consumer of water whose property is adjacent to said line has been connected to said pipe line ... and has become a customer” Idaho Water Company will pay $100.00, until the sum of $4,923.60 has been paid or the five-year period has expired. Although the contract does not specifically use the phrase “refundable water extension contract,” the plain language of the contract is unambiguous and is a contract for the extension of a water main with a refund provision for the costs incurred by the Developer; therefore, the district court was correct in finding, as a matter of law, that the contract is a “refundable water extension contract.”
2. The Albees’ property falls within the exception of Resolution 82-61.
The City argues even if the contract is a “refundable water extension contract,” the district court erred by not deferring to their interpretation and application of the exceptions to the City policy. For example, the City argues the exception does not apply to the Albees’ property because they were not a party to the 1965 Agreement, the Agreement was disavowed by the City, and the Resolution should only be applied prospectively.
A resolution, like a city ordinance, is interpreted under the same rules of construction as a statute. Lewiston Pistol Club, Inc., v. Board of County Com‘rs of Nez Perce County, 96 Idaho 137, 138-39, 525 P.2d 332, 334-35 (1974). This interpretation is a question of law over which this Court exercises free review. Id. The objective in interpreting a resolution, statute, or ordinance is to derive the intent of the legislative body that adopted the act. Payette River Property Owners Ass‘n v. Board of County Com‘rs of Valley County, 132 Idaho 551, 557, 976 P.2d 477, 483 (1999) (citing Ada County As-sessor, 124 Idaho at 428, 849 P.2d at 101). However, analysis of the legislative intent begins with the literal language of the enactment. Id. (citing Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho 819, 823, 828 P.2d 848, 852 (1992)). If the language is clear and unambiguous, the Court need merely apply the statute without engaging in any statutory construction. Thomas v. Worthington, 132 Idaho 825, 829, 979 P.2d 1183, 1187 (1999) (citing State v. Hagerman Water Right Owners, Inc., 130 Idaho 727, 732, 947 P.2d 400, 405 (1997)). This language should be given its plain, usual and ordinary meaning. Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho at 823, 828 P.2d at 852. (citations omitted). Only where the language is ambiguous will this Court look to rules of construction for guidance and consider the reasonableness of proposed interpretations. Payette River Property Owners Ass‘n, 132 Idaho at 557, 976 P.2d at 483. A resolution is ambiguous if reasonable minds might differ or be uncertain as to its meaning; however, ambiguity is not established “merely because an astute mind can devise more than one interpretation of it.” Matter of Permit No. 36-7200, 121 Idaho at 823, 828 P.2d at 852. See also, Payette River Property Owners Ass‘n, 132 Idaho at 557, 976 P.2d at 483.
The City relied on the policy set forth in City Resolution 82-61, Paragraph 9, to deny the Albees’ application for water service. As quoted above, the Resolution provides:
No new water service shall be provided to property outside the City limits except for that property having prior approval in the form of a subdivision, with complete water system installed, (approved prior to February 3, 1981), consumer orders, property abutting or adjoining mains installed under refundable water extension contracts, or other written agreements.
The language of the resolution clearly outlines the City‘s policy of not extending water service outside the City limits. In addition, it unambiguously provides exception to the City policy if the property is “abutting or adjoining mains installed under refundable water extension contracts.” Lot 7 is outside the city limits, and it abuts or adjoins the main line installed under the 1965 Agreement, a “refundable water extension contract“; therefore, the Albees’ property fits squarely within the exception.
The district court properly found, as a matter of law, that the Resolution is unambiguous, and the Albees’ property fits within the exception obligating the City to provide water service; therefore, there is no need for this Court to engage in the construction the City asks us to employ and there are no genuine issues of material fact to preclude summary judgment.
Because we are upholding the district court‘s decision obligating the City to provide water service to the Albees’ property, we need not address the Albees’ claims under
B. Attorney‘s Fees.
The Albees request attorney fees on appeal pursuant to
IV.
CONCLUSION
The City‘s Resolution unambiguously provides for an exception to allow water service for “property abutting or adjoining mains
Justices WALTERS, KIDWELL and EISMANN, concur.
Justice SCHROEDER specially concurring.
I agree with the result and reasoning of this Court. I write only to emphasize a concern. It is doubtful that a city has the right to purchase a public utility, replacing service in an area, and disavow obligations of service of that utility, no matter how artfully the city draws its ordinance or resolution. When a city purchases a utility that has an obligation to provide service, it is unlikely that the city has the right to pick and choose those service obligations it will honor and those it will not, absent an alternative arrangement for the provision of those services.