(DOWNLOAD) "Rae Subdivision v. Gallatin County" by Supreme Court of Montana " eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: Rae Subdivision v. Gallatin County
- Author : Supreme Court of Montana
- Release Date : January 30, 1988
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 62 KB
Description
Submitted on Briefs July 14, 1988 RAE Subdivision County Water and Sewer District No. 313 (RAE) petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Gallatin County to collect delinquent water and sewer assessments. The District Court for the Eighteenth Judicial District, Gallatin County, denied RAE's petition. RAE appeals. We affirm The issues are whether RAE has shown the two elements necessary for a writ of mandamus: a clear legal duty and the absence of a plain, speedy, or adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law Because we hold that the trial court was correct in concluding RAE has not shown that Gallatin County had a clear legal duty to collect the delinquent water and sewer assessments, we do not discuss the second element RAE is a water and sewer district formed just outside of Bozeman. It levies assessments against landowners within the district for water and sewer service. Frank J. Trunk is one of those landowners. He did not pay his 1982, 1983, 1984, 1985, and 1986 assessments RAE filed a lien against Frank Trunk's property and then filed an action to foreclose the lien in district court. The court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Gallatin County was the proper party to collect the delinquent assessments. RAE chose not to appeal that judgment. It asked the county treasurer to collect the taxes. However, the county attorney's office, on behalf of the county, informed RAE that Gallatin County was not going to collect the taxes RAE then filed this action before a second judge sitting in the same judicial district. RAE here petitioned for a writ of mandamus to compel Gallatin County to begin proceedings to collect the delinquent assessments from Mr. Trunk. After hearing arguments by the parties and studying the applicable statutes, that court ruled that RAE had failed to establish that Gallatin County has a clear legal duty to collect the assessments. It noted that since it found no such clear legal duty, it did not need to address the second requirement for issuance of a writ of mandamus under Section 27-26-102, MCA, that the applicant has no plain, speedy or adequate remedy at law. RAE appeals from the court's refusal to issue the writ Did the trial court err in concluding that Gallatin County did not have a clear legal duty to collect the delinquent water and sewer assessments levied by RAE? This issue may be restated as whether past due water and sewer assessments are collectible by the board of directors of the water and sewer district as are regular water and sewer assessments, or by the county as are taxes for bonded debts. The answer to this question is reached through statutory interpretation. The role of the courts in construing a statute is to declare what is there, not to insert what has been omitted or omit what has been inserted. Section 1-2-101, MCA The board of directors of a water and sewer district sets and collects the charges for sewer service and for sale and distribution of water: