Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A county board created a port authority in 2003 to encourage economic development, administering a business park on contaminated land formerly operated by a lumber company. In 2022, the port authority entered into agreements with a private company to clean up and potentially develop the property, culminating in the sale of 105 acres for $1.6 million, with a credit for cleanup costs. The plaintiff alleged that between May 2022 and April 2025, the port authority failed to provide adequate public notice of its meetings or opportunities for public participation regarding the land transactions, in violation of Montana’s open meeting and right to participate laws.The Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, reviewed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which sought to halt any actions pursuant to the port authority’s decisions during the contested period and to void the land sale and related contracts. The District Court denied the injunction, reasoning that the relief sought would not merely enforce open meeting laws but would invalidate completed transactions and disrupt the property’s new ownership and development. The court found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, particularly given the significant passage of time and changes to the property. The court did not resolve contested factual issues about notice or participation, nor did it make any final rulings on the underlying claims.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the District Court did not abuse its discretion because the plaintiff failed to establish all required elements for preliminary injunctive relief. The Supreme Court emphasized that the lower court had not decided the merits of the open meeting law claims and left those questions for future proceedings. View "Torgison v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

Two families owned adjacent lots in a five-lot subdivision in Gallatin County, Montana. The land, formerly a horse pasture, was subdivided in 2006. As a condition of subdivision approval, the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) required the developer to abandon certain small irrigation ditches crossing the lots, except for one on the east boundary. These requirements were recorded with the subdivision’s plat and were to be referenced in all future property transfers. Despite these requirements, the disputed ditch continued to carry water across several lots, including those eventually purchased by the plaintiffs.After purchasing their lots, the plaintiffs used the ditch water for irrigation, believing they had rights to the ditch based on representations by previous owners and realtors. Years later, the DEQ and local health authorities notified subdivision owners that the continued existence of the ditch violated the terms of the subdivision approval and related sanitation regulations. To comply, the defendants installed culverts, which were approved by authorities. The plaintiffs then sued, claiming the installation of culverts interfered with their implied ditch easement.The case was first reviewed by the Montana Eighteenth Judicial District Court, which granted summary judgment for the defendants. The District Court found that the plaintiffs had no ditch easement—implied or otherwise—because the recorded conditions for subdivision approval required abandonment of the ditches. The court further determined that any intent to allow continued ditch use, necessary for an implied easement, was negated by these recorded conditions.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s rulings. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiffs did not hold an implied easement by existing use, as the circumstances and recorded subdivision restrictions demonstrated no intent to continue the ditch’s use. The Supreme Court also upheld the award of attorney fees and costs to the defendants and remanded for determination of additional fees incurred on appeal. View "Dolan v. Guenther" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s approval of a family transfer exemption that allowed a landowner to divide an 80-acre tract of land into eight parcels, gifting them to family members. The organization alleged that the planning department failed to provide public notice before approving the exemption, in violation of county subdivision regulations. The land division was discovered years after its approval, when one of the organization’s members was researching a neighboring tract. The organization contended that the lack of public notice denied its members an opportunity to comment on the exemption application, as required by the county’s regulations.The organization filed suit in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The county moved to dismiss, arguing that its regulations did not require public notice for exemption applications. The District Court granted the county’s motion, dismissing all claims, and specifically found that the county regulations did not mandate published notice for review of proposed subdivision exemptions.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case. It held that the plain language of the county’s regulations, which state that “the public shall be permitted to comment” on exemption applications, necessarily implies that public notice must be provided; otherwise, the right to comment would be meaningless. The court emphasized that although the regulations do not specify the manner of notice, adequate notice is required to effectuate public participation. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. The holding was that the county’s subdivision regulations require the planning department to provide public notice of pending subdivision exemption applications to enable meaningful public comment. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

YC Properties purchased a ranch in Montana in 2020, acquiring a senior water right on Sawtooth Creek. Plaintiffs own junior, upstream water rights. A dispute arose over water usage, leading YC to petition for a water commissioner and, after alleging it was not receiving its full water allocation, to file suit against the plaintiffs. YC sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunctions to prevent the plaintiffs from diverting water until its senior right was satisfied. The District Court granted a TRO but later dissolved it and dismissed all of YC’s claims after the irrigation season ended and found YC lacked standing on one claim.Following dismissal of the underlying water rights action, the plaintiffs sued YC for abuse of process and malicious prosecution. YC moved to dismiss the new complaint, referencing facts and documents from the prior case and analyzing the summary judgment standard. The District Court notified the parties it would treat YC’s motion as one for summary judgment and, after additional briefing, granted summary judgment for YC and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims with prejudice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the District Court erred in converting YC’s motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment. The Supreme Court held that the District Court abused its discretion by converting the motion prematurely, as the only dispute was whether the complaint stated a claim and there was no need to consider materials outside the pleadings. The Supreme Court further found the plaintiffs’ complaint sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court reversed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. View "Roaring Lion v. YC Properties" on Justia Law

A group comprised of property owners from several Montana cities challenged the constitutionality of several zoning and land use laws enacted in 2023, including statutes requiring municipalities to permit accessory dwelling units and duplexes in single-family zones, and the Montana Land Use Planning Act (MLUPA), which imposed comprehensive planning requirements on larger cities. The group argued that these laws unfairly burdened single-family neighborhoods, undermined the right of citizens to participate in land-use decisions, and violated equal protection by creating arbitrary distinctions between citizens.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court initially granted partial relief to the challengers, enjoining certain statutory provisions it found violated the right to participate, and declared that the new laws could not supersede more restrictive private covenants. The court also held that the housing statutes did not violate equal protection. Parties on both sides appealed.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed these rulings. It first found that the public participation claims were justiciable, as a live controversy remained due to the likelihood of the challenged provisions recurring after temporary legislative amendments expired. The court held that the MLUPA’s public participation procedures did not, on their face, violate the Montana Constitution’s right to participate, as the statutes provided for notice and reasonable opportunity for public input, especially during the development of comprehensive plans, even if not at every stage of the process.The court also affirmed that the statutes did not violate equal protection, because the alleged classes—citizens in cities subject to MLUPA versus those outside, or those with versus without private covenants—were not similarly situated for constitutional purposes. Finally, the court vacated the lower court’s declaratory judgment regarding private covenants, finding it was an improper advisory opinion. The court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and vacated in part the lower court’s judgment. View "M.A.I.D. v. State" on Justia Law

Two water users on Mill Creek in Montana claimed rights to divert and use water based on historical court decrees. Their claims, filed in the 1980s as part of Montana’s general water rights adjudication, asserted periods of use that were broader than those described in a 1964 district court decree, the Petrich Decree, which had granted rights to “surplus” water in Mill Creek from May 1 to approximately July 15. The claimants’ filings instead asserted periods stretching from as early as April 1 to as late as October 1. After the Montana Water Court issued a preliminary decree for Basin 43B, Trout Unlimited, a conservation organization, objected, contending that the claimants overstated their periods of use.The Water Court consolidated the objections and granted Trout Unlimited partial summary judgment, limiting the claimants’ decreed periods of use to May 1 through July 15, as reflected in the Petrich Decree. The claimants then requested the generation of “implied claims” for water use outside this period, arguing they had historically used water beyond those dates. The Water Court generated implied claims with later priority dates for those additional periods but made them junior to other existing rights. Both sides appealed: Trout Unlimited challenged the creation of implied claims, and the claimants challenged Trout Unlimited’s standing and the summary judgment.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the Water Court’s ruling that Trout Unlimited had standing to object and upheld the limitation of the decreed periods of use to May 1–July 15. However, it reversed the Water Court’s generation of implied claims, finding that the claimants had not met their burden to show sufficient evidence of pre-1973 historic use outside the decree and that other water users lacked adequate notice. The Court remanded for further proceedings, requiring notice and specific factual findings regarding any implied claims. View "Petrich Family Limited Partnership v. Trout Unlimited" on Justia Law

Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson purchased a lot in the Ridgeview Trails Major Subdivision in Livingston, Montana, in 2012. The City of Livingston had approved the subdivision in 2005 and 2006, and a geotechnical report identifying problematic soils was created for the subdivision developers but was not provided to the Atkinsons when they purchased the lot. The Atkinsons received a building permit from the City to construct a residence, which was substantially completed in June 2013. In 2021, the Atkinsons began to observe cracking and structural problems in their home. After later discovering the existence of the geotechnical report, they sued the City in April 2024, alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation for the City’s failure to disclose known soil issues during the permitting process.The case was heard in the Montana Sixth Judicial District Court, Park County. By agreement, the parties proceeded directly to cross-motions for summary judgment to address threshold legal issues before discovery. The District Court granted summary judgment for the City, holding that the claims were barred by Montana’s statute of repose for construction-related claims, found in § 27-2-208, MCA. The District Court also found that the City owed no duty to the Atkinsons, that the public duty doctrine barred the claims, that the Atkinsons had disclaimed claims relating to permits and inspections, and that the geotechnical report was for the developer’s exclusive use.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana affirmed the District Court’s judgment. The Supreme Court held that the Atkinsons’ claims were barred by the ten-year statute of repose in § 27-2-208, MCA, because their claims arose from the City’s planning and inspection activities and were filed more than ten years after substantial completion of the home. The Court also held that the statute applies to municipalities and that no statutory exception applied. View "Atkinson v. Livingston" on Justia Law

A nonprofit coalition and two individuals challenged a county commission’s conditional approval for the development of a large seasonal RV park on a 21-acre lot in a rural area that had previously been designated for such use in a larger subdivision plan. The proposed site was adjacent to other commercial activity and near two lakes, but had no on-site surface water. The applicants submitted an environmental assessment (EA), which included groundwater well data and described wildlife in the area. The application process included public hearings, during which concerns were raised about groundwater impacts, wildlife, public safety, and increased recreational use.Following the submission of the application, the Lincoln County Planning Department recommended approval, and the Board of County Commissioners held public hearings, received additional agency comments, and ultimately granted conditional preliminary plat approval, requiring, among other conditions, state environmental review and approval of the water and sewer systems. The plaintiffs filed suit in the Montana Nineteenth Judicial District Court, claiming the County’s approval was unlawful for not complying with statutory requirements for environmental review, consideration of probable impacts, and consistency with local plans. The District Court granted summary judgment for the County and intervenors, finding compliance with applicable statutes and plans.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the EA met statutory requirements, whether the County considered specific, documentable, and clearly defined impacts as required by law, and whether the subdivision was consistent with the local neighborhood plan and growth policy. The Supreme Court held that the EA satisfied statutory requirements by providing all available information; the County properly considered impacts using the required legal standard; and the County’s decision was consistent with the relevant policies and not arbitrary or capricious. The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. View "Thompson Chain of Lakes Stewardship Coalition v. Lincoln County" on Justia Law

A non-governmental organization challenged a county planning department’s decision to approve a land division in the Bitterroot Valley. The organization alleged that the planning department authorized a property owner to divide an 80-acre tract into eight parcels using a family transfer exemption, but failed to provide public notice before approving the application. The organization discovered the land division after it had occurred and argued that the lack of public notice violated the county’s subdivision regulations, the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act, the Montana Public Participation Act, and constitutional rights to know and participate.The case was first heard in the Montana Twenty-First Judicial District Court, which granted the county’s motion to dismiss all claims. The district court concluded that the applicable county regulations did not require the planning department to provide published notice before reviewing or approving subdivision exemption applications. The court held that the organization had not stated a plausible claim because the regulations required only that the department accept public comments, not that it give notice.The Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s dismissal of the claims related to declaratory relief. The Supreme Court held that the county subdivision regulations, while silent on the specific mechanics of notice, require the planning department to provide public notice of pending exemption applications in order to give meaningful effect to the public’s right to comment, as mandated by the regulations. The court emphasized that public comment is meaningless without notice, and remanded the case for further proceedings, directing the district court to require the planning department to provide notice and an adequate opportunity for public comment before reevaluating the exemption application. View "Sapphire v. Ravalli County" on Justia Law

Two homeowners who purchased a residence in a Montana subdivision governed by covenants brought suit against their neighbors and the homeowners’ association after plans were approved for a new home to be built on an adjacent lot. The plaintiffs objected that the proposed construction would obstruct their mountain views. The subdivision’s covenants required that building placement “should take into consideration” neighboring dwellings, with “allowance for views and solar gains.” The association’s design review committee initially approved the plans, then rescinded approval after objections, requesting revised plans showing the plaintiffs’ residence. The defendants did not submit revised plans and ultimately received reinstated approval from the association’s board, which decided to let the parties resolve their dispute independently. The plaintiffs then filed suit seeking injunctive and declaratory relief.The Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denied the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. Subsequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, interpreting the covenants as not creating an enforceable obligation to protect views, and awarded attorney fees and costs to the defendants as prevailing parties.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Montana reviewed whether the denial of preliminary relief should be separately addressed, whether summary judgment was properly granted, and whether attorney fees were correctly awarded. The Supreme Court held that the orders denying preliminary relief had merged into the final judgment and did not require separate review. The Court reversed summary judgment, concluding the covenants created a mandatory obligation to genuinely consider neighboring impacts, including views. The Court found material questions of fact remained as to whether the defendants and the association sufficiently considered the plaintiffs’ views, precluding summary judgment. The attorney fee award was also reversed, as no party was yet prevailing. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Waddell v. Studer" on Justia Law