Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments LLC

Similar documents
Public Land and Resources Law Review

Riparian Rights, Navigability, and the Equal Footing Doctrine in Montana

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2014 MT 105

PPL Montana v. Montana: From Settlers to Settled Expectations

IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR WASATCH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

United States v. Ohio

Civil Law Property - Alluvion - Distinguishing Lakes Form Rivers and Streams

provisions of the North Dakota State Constitution, including Article X, Sec. 18

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT **********

Property - Rights of Riparian Owners to Alluvion Formed as a Result of the Works of Man

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

In the Supreme Court of the United States

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF

In The Supreme Court of the United States

Public Land and Resources Law Review

INTRODUCTION. in the QTA, courts have found that this provision acts as a

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA. Cause No. DA

2012 CO 23. The supreme court reverses the judgment of the court of appeals and holds that

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS SEVENTH DISTRICT

MONTANA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION DISTRICTS NEWS FROM THE FRONT 2013 EDITION. Friday 22nd February 2013

Paloma Inv. Ltd. Partnership v. Jenkins, 978 P.2d 110 (Ariz. App. Div. 1, 1998)

Montana Wildlife Federation v. Montana Board of Oil & Gas Conservation

IN THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT CAUSE NO.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON January 21, 2009 Session

Subject OWNERSHIP DETERMINATION - BEDS OF NAVIGABLE WATERS ACT. Number Same

PREVIEW; State v. Barrows: Double Jeopardy in Multi-Count Criminal Proceedings

THE SUPREME COURT AND THE PPL MONTANA CASE: EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN NAVIGABILITY AND STATE OWNERSHIP OF SUBMERGED LANDS

January 19, Re: Waters and Watercourses -- Navigable Waters -- Republican River; Navigability to Determine Ownership to River Bed

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

The Application of the Public Trust Doctrine to the Gila River

Fiscal Impact Summary FY FY Revenue Cash Funds ($1.5 million) ($3.0 million) Expenditures Cash Funds ($480,508) ($2,520,531)

The Public Trust Doctrine and Lakes Wisconsin Lakes Partnership Conference (April 6, 2017)

OPINIONS OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, 69

SOIL CONSERVATION (FURTHER AMENDMENT) ACT 1986 No. 142

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO. A T3 NEW JERSEY SCHOOLS DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Plaintiff-Appellant, October 29, 2012

SPECIAL PERMIT CONSIDERATIONS FOR SOVEREIGN LANDS AND AQUATIC PRESERVES

Pit River Tribe v. U.S. Forest Service

STATE OF OHIO ) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COUNTY OF WAYNE ) DECISION AND JOURNAL ENTRY

Enrolled Copy H.B. 133

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2006 MT 248

Pamela S. Leslie, General Counsel, and Gregory G. Costas, Assistant General Counsel, Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, for Appellant.

ALBERTA REGULATION 151/71 Oil and Gas Conservation Act OIL AND GAS CONSERVATION REGULATIONS PART 2 LICENSING OF WELLS

Montana's Constitutional Right to a Clean and Healthful Environment: Can a Value Ever Be Assigned to This Right? Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS

DON T FLOAT YOUR BOAT HERE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

v. Record No OPINION BY JUSTICE DONALD W. LEMONS February 27, 2009 R. FORREST SCOTT, ET AL.

No. DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2007 MT 130

THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

DA IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 2010 MT 35

2018 Utah Bar Spring Convention in St George

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE October 5, 2004 Session

Model Public Water, Public Justice Act

An Analysis of the Potential Conflict between the Prior Appropriation and Public Trust Doctrines in Montana Water Law

Water Rights: Is the Quechan Tribe Barred from Seeking a Determination of Reservation Boundaries in Indian Country

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOUDOUN COUNTY Thomas D. Horne, Judge. In this appeal, we consider whether the contract between

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

STATE OF VERMONT SUPERIOR COURT ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION Environmental Division Unit Docket No Vtec

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 25, 2009

NO CV. IN RE MARK CECIL PROVINE, Relator. Original Proceeding on Petition for Writ of Mandamus * * * NO.

APPEAL from an order of the circuit court for Outagamie County: DEE R. DYER, Judge. Reversed and cause remanded for further proceedings.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No IN RE: ANNEXATION TO THE CITY OF ) SHELLEY. ) )

COFFIN ET AL. THE LEFT HAND DITCH COMPANY. Supreme Court of Colorado. Dec. T., Colo Appeal from District Court of Boulder County

In The Supreme Court of the United States

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH

FAX TRANSMISSION COVER SHEET

STATE OF WISCONSIN TOWN OF MUKWA WAUPACA COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 3-00

Case 2:15-cv MJP Document 15 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 9

The Scope of the Sufficiently Close Relationship Test; How Porter v. Decatur Is Changing the Landscape of Relation Back

COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO, TEXAS

{*148} OPINION. FRANCHINI, Justice.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 99,793

STATE OF LOUISIANA COURT OF APPEAL, THIRD CIRCUIT

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT EXCAVATION PITS REGULATIONS

262 October 14, 2015 No. f467 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

Petitioner, ) ) Defendant. Defendant. 1. Decided: December 30, Appearances: Paul G. Reilly, Attorney of Record for -Petitioners

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT KNOXVILLE May 31, 2018 Session

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,973 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS MEMORANDUM OPINION

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE March 25, 2014 Session

16CA0940 Development Recovery v Public Svs

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT JACKSON October 28, 2015 Session

In re Crow Water Compact

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION. No. 117,103 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION. v. Case No: 8:11-cv-2029-T-30TBM ORDER

Kent Studebaker, Mayor Members of the City Council. Paul Espe, Associate Planner. Ordinance Annexing Property at 5022 Upper Drive (AN )

The Federal Common Law of Accretion: A New Element in Property Law

STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS

FILED: NASSAU COUNTY CLERK 09/30/ :39 PM INDEX NO /2011 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 69 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/30/2016. Exhibit 15

SUBMARINE MINERAL RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT ACT

Follow this and additional works at: Part of the Corporation and Enterprise Law Commons

Cite as: Buzz Stew, LLC v. City of N. Las Vegas 124 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 21 April 17, 2008 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA. No.

COUNSEL. Paul A. Kastler, Raton, New Mexico, for Appellants. Thomas M. Hnasko, Owen M. Lopez, Santa Fe, New Mexico, for Appellee.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS. No. 117,315. STATE OF KANSAS, Appellee, JIMMY LEE MURDOCK, Appellant. SYLLABUS BY THE COURT

Mineral Rights. Louisiana Law Review. Patrick H. Martin Louisiana State University Law Center. Volume 52 Number 3 January Repository Citation

County of Sonoma Agenda Item Summary Report

MARCELLUS MONEY AND THE PENNSYLVANIA LEGISLATURE

SENATE, No. 941 STATE OF NEW JERSEY. 217th LEGISLATURE INTRODUCED FEBRUARY 4, 2016

Transcription:

Public Land and Resources Law Review Volume 0 Case Summaries 2012-2013 Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments LLC William Fanning University of Montana School of Law, william.fanning@umontana.edu Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Fanning, William (2013) "Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments LLC," Public Land and Resources Law Review: Vol. 0, Article 4. Available at: https://scholarship.law.umt.edu/plrlr/vol0/iss3/4 This Case Summary is brought to you for free and open access by The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Public Land and Resources Law Review by an authorized editor of The Scholarly Forum @ Montana Law.

Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation v. Abbco Investments, LLC, 2012 MT 187, 366 Mont. 120, 285 P.3d 532. William Fanning ABSTRACT Defendant landowners claimed possession of riparian lands bordering the Missouri River. However, the State of Montana proved these lands had emerged vertically from the bed of the Missouri after Statehood and thus were the property of the State under both the public trust and the equal footing doctrines. While the case was in front of the Montana Supreme Court, a legislative amendment to HB 165, personally sponsored by Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer, identified these lands as State school trust lands. HB 165 further specified that income from certain islands, abandoned riverbeds, riverbeds, and power sites be deposited in the public schools facility and technology account. Because substantial oil and gas royalties are attached to the lands in this case, the schools received a windfall, and the defendants were left to pay the State s costs. I. INTRODUCTION The Montana Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) and the Montana Board of Land Commissioners (collectively the State ) succeeded in quieting title to three naturally accreting islands in the Missouri River which had been occupied and claimed by numerous defendants. 1 Although the State won its case, it appealed several rulings made by the district court in Richland County. 2 The Montana Supreme Court reversed the procedural 1 Montana Dept. of Natural Res. & Conservation v. Abbco Investments, LLC, 2012 MT 187, 366 Mont. 120, 285 P.3d 532, 534. 2 Id.

holdings, and using a newly revised statute (Mont. Code. Ann 77-1-102) clarified which public trust lands are to be characterized as school trust lands. 3 II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On July 12, 2006, the State filed an action in the Seventh Judicial District of Montana to quiet title to three islands in the Missouri River. 4 These lands encompass 487 acres, and are no longer surrounded by water but are attached to shore land. 5 Under the theory of adverse possession, defendant landowners claimed title by virtue of having paid taxes and improved the land. 6 The State entered the lands to survey, map, and photograph the islands in question. 7 On May 5, 2011, the Montana District Court granted the State s motion for summary judgment, and declared the State held title to the islands because they had naturally accreted in a navigable river after statehood. 8 Following precedent established in PPL Montana, LLC v. State, 9 the court ruled the islands were held as public trust lands but not school trust lands. 10 Further, the district court sua sponte used the theory of unjust enrichment to rule that the State was required to reimburse defendants for their payment of property taxes and improvements to the land. 11 The court also directed each party to pay their own costs. 12 On May 18, 2011, the State asked the court to alter or amend the portion of the order requiring them to reimburse the defendants, maintaining that it was entitled to costs incurred by bringing the quiet title action. 13 The court did not rule on the motion and entered judgment on 3 Id. at 536. 4 Id. at 534. 5 Id. 6 Id. at 535. 7 DNRC, 285 P.3d at 534. 8 Id.at 535. 9 PPL Mont., LLC v. State, 2010 MT 64, 355 Mont. 402, 229 P.3d 421. 10 DNRC, 285 P.3d at 536. 11 Id. at 535. 12 Id. 13 Id.

December 1, 2011. 14 After the motion was deemed denied, the parties stipulated to the amount in question for taxes and improvements, and the State raised four issues on appeal. 15 On August 28, 2012, the Montana Supreme Court held that: 1) islands arising vertically from the bed of the Missouri River after statehood are held by the State in trust for the financial benefit of the public schools; 16 2) the district court should have provided enough detail to render a legal description of the property; 17 3) it was improper for the court to sua sponte award defendants damages they never sought and the State had no opportunity to oppose; 18 and 4) as the prevailing party in a quiet title action, the State was entitled to recover its costs including expenses for making a map. 19 III. ANALYSIS When the district court declared islands vertically arising in the Missouri after statehood were not held by the State in trust for the financial benefit of the public schools, it was following precedent regarding designation of these lands established by the Montana Supreme Court. 20 In the case at bar, the Montana Supreme Court analyzed both the public trust and the equal footing doctrine and came to the same conclusion: title vests with the state for both navigable waters and the real property beneath the waters. 21 The 2011 Montana Legislature s revision of a statute that became effective between the district court and the Supreme Court decisions caused the Supreme Court to break with its own precedent and overrule the district court. The new statute, Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-102, provides: 14 Id. 15 Id. 16 DNRC, 285 P.3d at 536. 17 Id. at 537. 18 Id. at 538. 19 Id. 20 PPL Montana, LLC v. State, 2010 MT 64, 355 Mont. 402, 444, 229 P.3d 421, 450 cert. granted in part, 131 S. Ct. 3019, 180 L. Ed. 2d 843 (U.S. 2011) and rev'd and remanded, 132 S. Ct. 1215, 182 L. Ed. 2d 77 (U.S. 2012). 21 DNRC, 285 P.3d at 536.

(1) The following lands belong to the state of Montana to be held in trust for the benefit of the public schools of the state:... (b) all islands existing in the navigable streams or lakes in this state that have not been surveyed by the government of the United States. (c) all lands that at any time in the past constituted an island or part of an island in a navigable stream or lake, except those lands that are occupied by and belong to the adjacent landowners as accretions. 22 The Supreme Court then corrected the district court on three issues. It held: 1) that the State s research and evidence was sufficient to create a detailed description of each parcel, which should have been included in the final judgment; 23 2) that due process made it improper for the district court to award the defendants a remedy they never sought and the State had no opportunity to oppose; and 3) the State as prevailing party in a quiet title action was entitled to its costs, which included the costs of a survey, based on Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101. 24 IV. CONCLUSION The Montana Supreme Court decided Montana Department of Natural Resources. & Conservation v. Abbco Investments, LLC on the basis of a newly revised statute specifically addressing ownership of naturally accreting islands in navigable rivers. Because these lands are now classified as school trust lands, rather than public trust lands, the State has a fiduciary responsibility to use these lands to generate income. 25 One very material result of the rewriting of Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-102 is that Montana s school facility and technology fund will receive the significant oil and gas royalties from these properties which have been held in escrow. 26 The State s brief called the Court s attention to the statute s crucial language change; however, it was Montana s Governor Brian Schweitzer who personally inserted the changed 22 Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-102 (2011). 23 DNRC, 285 P.3d at 537. 24 Id. at 538. 25 Mont. Code Ann. 77-1-219 (2011). 26 Appellant s Brief *2 (Mar. 21, 2012) WL 1122866.

language as an amendment to House Bill 165, which was subsequently approved by the legislature. 27 27 Governor Brian Schweitzer s letter to House Speaker Mike Milburn April 19, 2011. http://governor.mt.gov/news/docs/042011-hb%20165-hollandsworth-av-ltr-and-amndmts.pdf (accessed September 17, 2012).