*1 non-profit CAMP, FLATHEAD LAKE METHODIST M. v. CORREAN Respondent, corporation, Plaintiff County WEBB, County, Montana, Treasurer Lake Appellant. Defendant No. 10790 January February 1965.
Submitted 1965. Decided P.2d *2 appellant. (argued), Poison, Heinz Richard P. (argued), Missoula, Skelton Hendricks, Robert & Skelton respondent. Missoula, for T. HARRISON delivered
MR. CHIEF JUSTICE JAMES Opinion of the Court. judgment from entered appeal, This is an the defendant County, of Lake Montana. in the district court corporation, non-profit plaintiff is a The record discloses establishing maintaining incorporated camp Lake in Lake summer Flathead Methodist Church corporation land, two tracts of one County, owns Montana. camp purposes not which is used and is 3.55 acres being exempt, prop- claimed to erty twenty- approximately here involved and consists edge two acres in the form small peninsula of a on the plaintiff Lake. The congrega- several Montana Methodist tions twenty-eight improvements maintain some prop- on this erty. congregations The various have built and maintain four- dormitory teen cottages. improvements Other faculty include housing, employee accommodations, auditorium-dining room building, storage and shop, and bathing facilities. There is a area, garage, parking dock, tank, boat supply garbage water disposal. Also, chapel there is buildings. and four classroom peninsula edge ragged One rocky is a shore-line with bluffs. This side land is for nature walks and medi- used tation. The Kalispell cities of Poison and lie twenty- each about eight away opposite miles directions, making virtually self-sufficient. campsite purchased and some of the facilities were by money constructed obtained from the fire insurance col- *3 lected on the former in camp Glacier Park which burned in property income came from sale the Other the where- camp on the burned been had situated. The for funds the camp private donations, maintenance of the come from Metho- contributions, dist and, Church measure, small from the money by paid the children and others come who there. camp principally
The caters organized, to children on an They segregated age two-week basis. are the throughout summer, having two-week camp approximately each 150 chil- dren in larger attendance. The area served is somewhat encompassing circle western Montana. The range activities from instruction, praying, meditation, and walks nature secular recreation such archery, swimming, as and crafts. Each provide day organized program a balanced arts and is instruction, crafts, activity, religious rest, chores, physical and prayers. majority are Methodists, The of the children but there many represented that different faiths been evidence have years. there the over plaintiff paid real taxes the treasurer estate protest this to recover County and action
Lake under commenced alleged property within them. Plaintiff all of the came XII, tax of the Montana Constitu- of Article § pro- The 84-202, tion and section R.C.M.1947. constitutional part: provides in vision * * * States, exempt “The property of the United shall taxation; may ex- property from as be used agricultural clusively societies, horticultural for * * * purposes, places religious worship, educational actual for * * purely public charity *, institutions exempt from (Emphasis supplied.) taxation.” exemp- expression of the same 84-202, legislative Section provides part: tion and ‘ ‘ * * * property States, The such other property of United exclusively agricultural socities, for and horticultural used religious worship, purposes, places for educational of actual * # * # * * a]a(j exempt purely public charity institutions taxation, but no more than is for such from * # was sought complaint establish original The testimony worship,” but so much “place actual aspects and charitable elicited on the educational was testimony at plaintiff’s motion the close grounds to include amend those two granted. Judge Brown- E. Gardner before District was tried case judgment plaintiff. judgment was rendered
lee 84-202, exempt under section to be all of the holds County Treasurer, brings defendant, Lake R.C.M.1947. chapel the four classroom contending appeal *4 prop- they are on are property real situated buildings and the exempt campsite. all the error to exempt, but that was erly the read- alleged error is clause the statute for The basis necessary for more ing: “no ** exempt 569 buildings appellant only four classroom argues the religious “necessary” place the chapel are of actual meaning worship phrase in statute. within the of that the words, there is no contest that some of the exemption. exempt. Appellant only to the seeks restrict might persuaded agree While we with counsel that be chapel buildings and the classroom for actual religious worship argument must consider much of point complaint wasted because the was amended to include other grounds exemption. for in- We must test the stant viewpoint case from the educational, of the religious, grounds and charitable exemption. It counsel seems has religious worship argument stressed the because that was the way read testimony. until the conclusion of the case, plaintiff theAt close of the moved to amend the com- plaint proof. conform the
Our review of the leads record us to the conclusion use premises “exclusive” of the is for “educational purposes” within meaning of the statute. The term “educa purposes” not, tional weight authority, defined in terms of the common grammar scholastic institutions of school, high school, and university college. People or ex rel. Board Trustees Mt. Pleasant Academy Mezger, 98 v.
App.Div. 237,
Organizations
the latter
property.
all of the
exemption of
di-
particularly
may be
“Education
has stated:
Our
faculties,
powers or
physical
mental, moral, or
rected to either
all.” Mc-
it embraces them
best sense
broadest and
but in its
County, 87 Mont.
1
Dist. No.
of Cascade
Nair v. School
held elsewhere
866. It has been
188, 190, 69 A.L.R.
428, 288 P.
religious
of one’s
includes the cultivation
that “education”
v.
District of Columbia
of
moral sentiment. Commissioners
67,
One religious, educational, and charitable nature have definite point it. to one very about So much so that it is difficult categories prem- inherent use primary However, hold, do if a hold- clear, ises. we think ing necessary, camp use is more exclusive directly anything Appellant re- educational else. has occasionally ferred to the camp fact that the rented out to private groups addition, gather a nominal fee. from experience type both our own with transcript from comments in the the children in enjoyable camp. attendance do have an at stay recreational is to teach But the clear and achievement citizens, how to assert relax, children how to how better *7 to communities, a influence on their home how Christian morality through nature, and and appreciate God closeness grow Qualities maturity. good character a how to and They may may of moral values must be not sense learned. homes, certainly it in being to them their but taught taught camp. The that the children’s being them this fact at carefully planned to instruction is the most so include day is aspect camp fulfills an educa- our crucial decision a This not case all activities purpose. where tional for are. many camps summer children oriented, like recreation good the children who influence on camps do have Those benefiting directly children they are more attend, but calculated, camp is “let off steam.” This allowing them to by through children a two- to lead the programmed designed, life. practice a moral and Christian in the week course camp this substantive characterization Should the lose recreational classify mind it as a mere would then be of a deny exemption. authority exemption statute Appellant has cited strictly against exemption. is to be construed Cruse v. Fisehl, 258, 55 Mont. 878; Town of Cascade v. Cascade P. County, 304, agree Mont. 806. with this rule P. We respect compelled to each case from it, but are view for our characterization standpoint. realistic motivation purposes” is ex of this as one devoted “educational pressed case, in Turn Yerin by the New York Court the Buffalo supra, as follows: must, judicial determinations, in all in place
“We juxtaposition judicial interpretation. the two extremes of On policy the one hand is the of strict construction which frowns upon exemption. [Citing tax hand, On the other inno- cases.] to the furtherance of cent collateral activities essential corporation the court purposes true should blind genuineness sincerity of purposes to the of those nor to the accomplishment.” 281 N.Y.S. [Citing their actual cases.] page at approach an is not with the of strict
Such inconsistent rule cases, supra. construction set forth the Cruse and Cascade question fulfill of how much land is purposes” ment of “educational is a one because the factual Legislature exemption has seen fit to in the make so statute. Am.Jur., Taxation, Numerous collected in 51 authorities are 623, showing strictly that besides the used § purposes,” for “educational there to be allowed recreation, residence, sufficient amount of land personnel People Bishop ex rel. v. of Chi needs. Catholic area, near a educa cago, 311 Ill. N.E. used the students for center, had a lake and was tional *8 skating in and the win- boating swimming and the summer areas, and walks, gardens, wooded addition, In there were ter. recreational real and its a baseball-tennis area. All of this estate exclusively improvements exempt “being used were religious purposes.” school and in Missions v.
The decision of this court Montana Catholic County, 684, and Clark 13 Mont. 35 P. L.R.A. Lewis way inis no altered here. In that case the our decision sought exempt crucial element fact the land to be was not in exemption actual use at the time was claimed. All privi- exemption that in that the court held was order to secure use; mere intention to use leges land would have to be certainly dealing with was not sufficient. We are not inactive property here. conclusion, proper it segregate is not this
exempt part it. only relying of Even without on the re- ligious property, character of the charitable whole ‘‘ ’’ the land purposes. of as land used for educational presence strength- only and charitable overtones Camps, Village Specu- ens our decision. Christian Inc. v. lators, App.Div. 868, question N.Y.S.2d 377. The and has been resolved satis- the amount of land is a factual one factorily by judge. Anno. 134 the district See A.L.R. explained where amount extends necessary enjoyment of land found for the exercise purposes. for educational necessary accomplishment limits of land particular purpose” opinion “educational decided is not this because hold that district had substantial evi- twenty-two did, approximately find, as it dence to improvements in this ease. twenty-eight with acres in the been answered specifications error have The other generally deal with the ex- opinion, as all four course of necessary. emption the amount of land judgment affirmed. *9 HARRISON, ADAIR, MR. JUSTICES JOHN CONWAY and CASTLES concur. ALLEN, Judge,
HONORABLE NAT sitting District place of Justice Mr. DOYLE: Exemption
I dissent. strictly statutes should be construed. point With respondent both counsel for majority and the opinion agree yet this summer which entices children up there with the boating, swimming, lure of fishing, archery, horseshoes, skiing, water pastimes and other summer that can enjoyed on a beautiful lake like Flathead is now con- strued the court to “place be either a of actual worship” or an “educational” institution and while tran- script very matters, deals little with educational it does great deal with theory matters which was the on which the respondent case was tried. The to amend moved his proof to conform to the at the end of the testi- mony and the lower court said it would do so on its own motion. majority opinion grounds its decision on the fact that the camp is “calculated, designed, programmed lead through the children a two-week practice course aof moral and Christian they life” and simply are not there to “let off steam.” Thus, they become educational and are there- exempt. fore The majority may perceive this as a sound dis- tinction but I wonder how apply will assessor principle? up perceived they If he went to see and were letting steam, taxable, not, exempt. off then it would be if it is predict I that under this decision all the assessor can do is exemptions to allow up to all the if churches there and he not, does some district will obliged feel to do so under great this decision and a deal of this dollar a foot front lake gravitate will exemption status, prob- since will no any lem put program church to nicely will come scope within the presented. of the evidence here