JON C. WELLS and CANDY A. WELLS, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. M. DUANE YOUNG and NANCY YOUNG, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants.
No. 00-832.
Supreme Court of Montana
Decided May 15, 2002.
Submitted on Briefs August 23, 2001.
2002 MT 102 | 309 Mont. 419 | 47 P.3d 809
For Respondents: Jeffrey J. Oven, Crowley, Haughey, Hanson, Toole & Dietrich, P.L.L.P., Billings.
JUSTICE REGNIER delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶1 M. Duane Young and Nancy Young (“the Youngs“) appeal from the July 25, 2000, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order of the Montana Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Big Horn County, permanently enjoining flood irrigation practices on their property. Additionally, the Youngs appeal from the District Court‘s October 4, 2000, Order denying their
¶2 We find one issue dispositive of this appeal:
¶3 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it permanently enjoined lawful flood irrigation practiсes on the Youngs’ property?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶4 The Youngs own thirteen acres of real property near Hardin, Montana, which they purchased in 1988. Floyd Warren, Inc., leases approximately four acres of the Youngs’ property for crop production. The Youngs and their predecessors in interest have irrigated the four acre parcel for decades. Actual irrigation of the property is sporadic due to the lack of water and the type of crop selected for production. The annual income derived by the Youngs from crop production on their irrigated parcel of property is approximately $400.00.
¶5 In 1992, Jon C. Wells and Candy A. Wells (“the Wells“) purchased
¶6 Following a bench trial, the District Court entered its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order on July 25, 2000. The specific findings of the District Court are critical to оur analysis and will therefore be explained in some detail.
¶7 The District Court found that the flood irrigation practices employed on the Youngs’ property are “typical of the practice of irrigators who utilize flood irrigation on crops.” Moreover, the District Court determined that it is unlikely that the flood irrigation practices conducted on the Youngs’ property caused a rise in groundwater so substantial as to cause the flooding experiеnced by the Wells. The District Court found that the “most plausible and credible explanation” of the flooding experienced by the Wells is the existence of a subsurface pathway or conduit, “most likely” an abandoned United States Bureau of Indian Affairs (“BIA“) ditch, extending from the head ditch on the Youngs’ property to the Wells’ home. Despite entering the prior findings, the District Court also found that the “saturation of the soils around the Wells’ residence and the entry of water into thе Wells’ crawl space occurred as a result of the flood irrigation practices used in irrigating the Youngs’ field in 1994 and in 1998.” The District Court determined that the conduit or possibly other conditions responsible for the water flooding the Wells’ property existed prior to the Wells’ purchase of the property and the construction of their home.
¶8 Since the irrigation practices on the Youngs’ property predated the construction of the Wells’ home, the District Court reasoned that
¶9 Nonetheless, the District Court permanently enjoined the Youngs
¶10 After entry of the District Court‘s July 25, 2000, Order, the Youngs moved the District Court to alter or amend its judgment pursuant to
¶11 The District Court relied on our decision in Madison Fork Ranch v. L & B Lodge Pole Timber Products (1980), 189 Mont. 292, 615 P.2d 900, to suрport its conclusion that injunctive relief is available as a remedy to enjoin lawful activity when equity so warrants. The District Court noted that our holding in Madison Fork relied strictly on equitable principles of law and did not cite
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶12 The grant or denial of an injunction is within the discretion of the district court and will not be reversed absent an abuse of that discretion. Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 33, 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 33, 993 P.2d 701, ¶ 33 (citation omitted). Moreover, the granting of an injunction is an equitable remedy. Talley v. Flathead Valley Community College (1993), 259 Mont. 479, 491, 857 P.2d 701, 708 (citation omitted). Therefore, we review both questions of law and questions of fact arising upon the evidence presented in the record to determine if the court abused its discretion. See
DISCUSSION
¶13 Did the District Court abuse its discretion when it permanently enjoined lawful flood irrigation practices on the Youngs’ property?
¶14 The District Court determined that the imposition of a permanent injunction was warranted in this case pursuant to
¶15 The Youngs claim that neither law nor equity permits the imposition of a permanent injunction precluding lawful irrigation practices. The Youngs contend that the trial court applied an incorrect legal standard when it permanently enjoined their irrigation practices, which it initially determined were lawful and did not cause the Wells’ damages. The Youngs assert that the applicable Montana statute governing the imposition of permanent injunctions,
¶16 The Wells respond that the District Court did not abuse its discretion, under legal or equitable grounds, when it imposed a permanent injunction. While they do not dispute that a breach of an obligation is a prerequisite to the imposition of a permanent injunction pursuant to
¶17 While the parties agree that a district court must find a breach of an obligation by the party sought to be enjoined prior to imposing a permanent injunction, pursuant to
¶18 The District Court specifically found in its July 25, 2000, Order that:
The flood irrigation practice utilized on the Youngs’ field is typical of the practice of irrigators who utilize flood irrigation on crops. [Finding # 13]
The field ditches on the Youngs’ field are of the correct size, located at or near the high point of the field which is necessary to irrigate the field and situated in a manner to convey water. [Finding # 14]
Expert testimony established that it is unlikely that the flood irrigation сonducted by Mr. Warren and Mr. Young caused a rise in groundwater so substantial as to cause the flooding experienced by the Wells. The most plausible and credible explanation of the flooding experienced by the Wells is the existence of a subsurface pathway or conduit from the head ditch on the Youngs’ property to the home on the Wells’ property. [Finding # 26]
Conduits can result from decaying tree roots, old utility paths, and/or old abandoned ditches. The evidence indicates that all three possible sources exist on the Wells’ property. [Finding # 27]
The most likely conduit is an abandoned BIA ditch which runs to or in close proximity to the Wells’ home. The BIA ditch was altered due to highway construction in 1961 with part of the ditch forming the head ditch now on the Youngs’ property and the abandoned portion of the ditch traveling across the Wells’ property. [Finding # 28]
The District Court then expressly concluded in its July 25, 2000, Order
¶19 Further, in its October 4, 2000, Order, the District Court stated:
[T]his Court‘s imposition of a permanent injunction comports with the procedure outlined in
§ 27-19-102, MCA . Defendants have a clear general duty (as do we all) not to damage the property of another. See§ 28-1-201, MCA . Under the unique facts of this case, the Defendants continued use of flood irrigation upon their field clearly results in immediate, irrepаrable, and substantial harm to the Plaintiffs’ home.
¶20 Clearly, the District Court entered a general finding in its October 4, 2000, Order determining that the Youngs breached the duty imposed upon them by
¶21 We now turn to the question of whether the District Court abused its discretion, as a matter of equity, when it enjoined flood irrigation practices on the Youngs’ property. The Youngs contend that equity follows the law. The Youngs thus argue that, as a matter of equity, a finding of wrongful activity or the breach of an obligation is a prerequisite to the imposition of a permanent injunction since such a finding is required by
¶22 The Wells argue that the injunction was entirely appropriate
¶23 We have held that equity follows the law. See First National Bank of Twin Bridges v. Sant (1973), 161 Mont. 376, 383, 506 P.2d 835, 840. We stated in Nelson v. Wilson (1928), 81 Mont. 560, 264 P. 679, 683, that:
Indeed, law and equity do not clash. In many cases they are commingled, administered together, and the rules of each have a place. Any idea that the law judges in defiance of equity and that equity is not bound by the law is erroneous. 2 Cooley‘s Blackstone (4th Ed.) 430. While this case is a suit in equity, brought to obtain equitable relief, in it the law must be invoked to determine what rules govern transactions ... so that both law and equity must be regarded.
¶24 The cases cited by the Wells, wherein a permanent injunction was imposed, follow the principle that equity follows the law. Prior to the imposition of an injunction in those cases, wrongful conduct or the breach of an obligation were expressly identified. See Jefferson v. Big Horn County, 2000 MT 163, ¶ 17 and ¶ 28, 300 Mont. 284, ¶ 17 and ¶ 28, 4 P.3d 26, ¶ 17 and ¶ 28 (injunction enjoining government‘s unlawful imposition of tax vacated after change in law); Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 58, 298 Mont. 116, ¶ 58, 993 P.2d 701, ¶ 58 (encroachment of ditch right in violation of
¶25 Moreover, our decision in Madison Fork is distinguishable. The parties in Madison Fork entered into a contract whereby L & B Lodge Pole Timber Products (“L & B“) was allowed to cut beetle infested timber on the Madison Fork Ranch (“the Ranch“). Thereafter, L & B cut both beetle infested trees and uninfected trees. The Ranch subsequently notified L & B that they considered the contract
¶26 Following a trial, the trial court found that L & B “failed and refused to perform certain obligations under the contract” and concluded that L & B breached the contract. Madison Fork, 189 Mont. at 298, 615 P.2d at 904. The trial court held that an injunction was propеr because the destruction and threatened future destruction of the standing timber could not be remedied by an action at law. Madison Fork, 189 Mont. at 298, 615 P.2d at 904. On appeal, we held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed a permanent injunction enjoining L & B from harvesting both infested and uninfected timber since L & B breached the terms of the contract. Madison Fork, 189 Mont. at 302, 615 P.2d at 906. Further, we held that the injunction was warranted because L & B entered the Ranch and continued to cut both infested and uninfected timber after receiving notification of tеrmination of the contract. Madison Fork, 189 Mont. at 302, 615 P.2d at 906.
¶27 Unlike Madison Fork, the District Court in this case entered no specific findings that the Youngs’ conduct was unlawful or that they breached an obligation. Rather, the District Court specifically determined that the Youngs’ conduct was lawful and that the “most plausible and credible explanation” of the flooding experienced by the Wells resulted from an abandoned BIA ditch. Therefore, based on the particular facts of this case, we conclude that thе District Court abused its discretion, as a matter of equity, when it permanently enjoined flood irrigation practices on the Youngs’ property. Accordingly, we reverse the District Court‘s imposition of a permanent injunction in this case.
¶28 In passing, we note that the District Court concluded that
¶29 Reversed.
CHIEF JUSTICE GRAY and JUSTICE NELSON and DISTRICT JUDGE MACEK, sitting for JUSTICE COTTER concur.
JON C. WELLS and CANDY A. WELLS, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. M. DUANE YOUNG and NANCY YOUNG, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants.
No. 00-832.
Supreme Court of Montana
Decided May 15, 2002.
2002 MT 102 | 309 Mont. 419 | 47 P.3d 809
¶30 I dissent. Based upon general equity principles, the deference afforded to district courts with respect to equitable relief and our established precedent, I would hold that the District Court properly enjoined the Youngs from further damaging the Wells’ home in order to earn approximately $400 per year.
¶31 Equity principles permit the District Court‘s decision under the facts of this case. The majority relies on the proposition that equity follows the law and, citing our 1928 Nelson decision, the notion that law and equity do not clash and are, in many cases, commingled. I agree with these basic equity tenants. However, I disagree with the majority‘s narrow view of, what I believe, are courts’ broader equity powers to serve justice when a party lacks a remedy at law.
¶32 Our early case law recognized a distinction between legal and equitable remedies. In State ex rel. Lewis and Clark County v. District Court (1931), 90 Mont. 213, 219-20, 300 P. 544, 546, we noted that while there are a great many exacting Code provisions which must be strictly followed as applied to actions at law, there are others with which the law provisions have nothing to do, except as equity follows the law, “and thе two must not be confused.” Indeed, in the Nelson opinion cited by the majority, we also recognized that equity, while guided by rules and precedent, is “the correction of that wherein the law, by reason of its universality, is deficient.” Nelson, 81 Mont. at 572, 264 P. at 683.
¶33 It is equally important to note that injunctive relief, as a device of equity, is appropriate when it appears that the commission or continuance of an act will produce irreparable injury to the party seeking relief. A continuing invаsion of a property right may constitute an irreparable injury. Engel, ¶ 56 (citing Ducham, 265 Mont. at 442-43, 877 P.2d at 1006). What distinguishes an injunction from other forms of relief is that it is an equitable remedy granting prospective, as opposed to retrospective, relief. Jefferson, ¶ 18. Most importantly, equity dictates that an injunction be fashioned according to the circumstances of the case. Talley, 259 Mont. at 491, 857 P.2d at 708 (citing Montana Tavern Ass‘n v. State of Montana by and through Dept. of Revenue (1986), 224 Mont. 258, 265, 729 P.2d 1310, 1315).
¶34 Here, the District Court invoked the law to determine what rulеs governed the transactions between the Youngs and the Wells. It properly determined that, under
¶35 The majority would restrict injunctive relief to only situations outlined in
¶36 The majority also concludes that the District Court entered no specific findings that the Youngs’ conduct was unlawful or that they breached an obligation and, thus, the court‘s reliance on Madison Fork was misplaced. However, what the majority fails to address is that the district court in Madison Fork enjoined lawful conduct when it restrained L & B from harvesting infected timber on the Madison Fork Ranch. With regard to these trees, there was no breach of contract or breаch of obligation. Yet, we upheld the district court‘s injunction under the facts of that case on the basis of two general principles: that injunctions must be framed according to the circumstances of each case and that injunctions are proper if an act has or will produce irreparable injury. Madison Fork, 189 Mont. at 302, 615 P.2d at 906.
¶37 In this regard, we have previously upheld injunctive relief restraining lawful activity. Boyer v. Karagacin (1978), 178 Mont. 26, 32-33, 582 P.2d 1173, 1177 (upheld permanent injunction prohibiting legal parking of car which blocked access to adjacent business upon concluding that “... an act, while technically legal, may be enjoined as a nuisance.“). In disputes among neighbors, such as the one at hand, we have approved of equitable measures restricting lawful conduct “for the sake of preserving ‘peace and tranquility.‘” Engel, ¶¶ 52-53 (lawful user of easement required to give notice to neighbor by mail or telephone prior to exercising her right to access easеment by vehicle).
¶38 Here, while the District Court found that an abandoned BIA ditch
¶39 To hold that the District Court abused its discretion in issuing injunctive relief under these facts is tantаmount to saying that an irrigator may, for no good reason, continue causing irreparable damage to his neighbor‘s home, in perpetuity. It would be a different situation altogether if the Youngs’ irrigation resulted in more than nominal income. By carefully considering the competing interests involved and fashioning injunctive relief, the District Court did not act on a whim or decide this case in defiance of the law. Giving due deference to the District Court, I would affirm.
JUSTICE TRIEWEILER and JUSTICE RICE join in the dissent of JUSTICE LEAPHART.