Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this condemnation proceeding, the district court did not err in concluding that Mountain Water Company was not entitled to statutory interest pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-302(2), when read in conjunction with Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-311.Mountain Water and the City of Missoula entered into a settlement agreement providing that the City would take possession of Mountain Water’s condemned property upon the City paying Mountain Water for all assets and claims asserted in the previous condemnation action. The district court entered a final judgment in condemnation that included the agreed payment method and transfer of possession as set forth in the settlement agreement. After the district court signed the final order of condemnation, Mountain Water sought post-summons interest. The district court denied Mountain Water’s motion for statutory interest pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-302(2) and refused to grant discretionary interest. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Mountain Water was not entitled to statutory interest where the City did not take interlocutory possession of the condemned property prior to final conclusion of the condemnation proceedings; and (2) Mountain Water was not entitled to discretionary interest. View "Missoula v. Mountain Water Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court quieting surface title and a one-half interest in a mineral estate to Mark and Jo Marie Nelson, with the remaining half interest in Anthony Palese and Mary Jo Davis.The Nelsons purchased property from Davis and Palese. The deed purported to sell the Nelsons the property in its entirety, with the exception of a portion of the mineral estate reserved in Davis and Palese. The Nelsons and Davis and Palese later leased the property for oil and gas development. In the title search, the Nelsons’ counsel uncovered possible remote heirs with an interest in the property, George and Rose Salituro. The Nelsons brought this quiet title action, and the district court ruled in their favor. The Salituros appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when Davis and Palese conveyed the property to the Nelsons, the Salituros’ interests in the property had already been extinguished. View "Nelson v. Salituro" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s amended complaint against several lenders, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing some of Plaintiff’s claims but erred in dismissing the remaining claims.After Plaintiff defaulted on her loan on real property, she received at least nine notices of sale. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint against Lenders, alleging six causes of action. The district court granted Lenders’ motion to dismiss the amended complaint pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in dismissing Plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claim as a matter of law or in dismissing Plaintiff’s negligent and/or intentional infliction of emotional distress claim fore failure to state sufficient facts to entitle her to relief; and (2) incorrectly determined that Plaintiff’s amended complaint failed to state a claim on her asserted breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims. View "Puryer v. HSBC Bank" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977 (Landlord-Tenant Act) and alleging violations of restrictive covenants, holding that the district court erred by dismissing Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the property covenants’ business use restrictions. Specifically, the Court held (1) where Plaintiff did not allege he was a landlord, tenant or guest or that he otherwise suffered an injury on the premises, Plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief under the Landlord-Tenant Act; and (2) Plaintiff’s business use allegations satisfied notice pleading requirements, and Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to allege a violation of the covenants based on noxious or offensive activity. View "Cossitt v. Flathead Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the order of the district court dismissing Plaintiff’s claims under the Montana Residential Landlord and Tenant Act of 1977 (Landlord-Tenant Act) and alleging violations of restrictive covenants, holding that the district court erred by dismissing Plaintiff’s claims alleging violations of the property covenants’ business use restrictions. Specifically, the Court held (1) where Plaintiff did not allege he was a landlord, tenant or guest or that he otherwise suffered an injury on the premises, Plaintiff could prove no set of facts in support of his claim that would entitle him to relief under the Landlord-Tenant Act; and (2) Plaintiff’s business use allegations satisfied notice pleading requirements, and Plaintiff pled sufficient facts to allege a violation of the covenants based on noxious or offensive activity. View "Cossitt v. Flathead Industries, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this case involving a dispute over a road easement.Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC sought declaratory relief that Barbara Jerde, in Counts I-III, (1) improperly deviated from the easement onto Quarter Circle’s unburdened property, (2) used the easement to access certain property not benefitted by the easement, and (3) used the easement for residential purposes that were not contemplated by the easement. The district court granted summary judgment for Quarter Circle on Counts I-II and granted summary judgment to Jerde on Count III of the complaint. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred by concluding the road easement “for the purpose of conducting farming and ranching operations and activities” was specific in nature and unambiguously included residential use; (2) did not err by concluding that the Jerde contract property was not subject to the easement; and (3) did not err by denying joinder of the owner of the after-acquired property to the litigation. View "Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC v. Jerde" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the judgment of the district court in this case involving a dispute over a road easement.Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC sought declaratory relief that Barbara Jerde, in Counts I-III, (1) improperly deviated from the easement onto Quarter Circle’s unburdened property, (2) used the easement to access certain property not benefitted by the easement, and (3) used the easement for residential purposes that were not contemplated by the easement. The district court granted summary judgment for Quarter Circle on Counts I-II and granted summary judgment to Jerde on Count III of the complaint. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) erred by concluding the road easement “for the purpose of conducting farming and ranching operations and activities” was specific in nature and unambiguously included residential use; (2) did not err by concluding that the Jerde contract property was not subject to the easement; and (3) did not err by denying joinder of the owner of the after-acquired property to the litigation. View "Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC v. Jerde" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed three orders of the district court that directed Southwest Montana Building Industry Association (SWMBIA) to transfer funds from the impact fee payer class refund account (refund account) to the City of Bozeman, to submit an accounting of the refund account, and for contempt of court. The Court held (1) the district court did not exceed its authority when it ordered SWMBIA to transfer the funds remaining in the refund account to Bozeman; (2) the district court’s order regarding the transfer of the remaining refund account funds was enforceable; (3) the district court did not err when it did not dispose of the remaining refund account funds in accordance with Mont. R. Civ. P. 23(i)(3); (4) the district court did not abuse its discretion when it ordered SWMBIA to provide an accounting of the refund account; and (5) SWMBIA cannot obtain relief from the district court’s contempt order. View "Southwest Montana Building Industry Ass’n v. City of Bozeman" on Justia Law

David Platt and Steven Held purchased a ranch together and formalized their arrangement by entering into an operating agreement. Later, Held, Platt, and Tim Welu decided to divide the property into three parts, with each party owning 2,000 acres. After the land sale, all the parties entered into a recorded agreement. Later, the relationships soured. When Held refused to grant an easement across his property to Platt, Platt initiated this lawsuit, alleging easement by express grant, prescription and implication, and praying for reformation of the contract due to mutual mistake and fraud. Welu intervened, seeking reformation and alleging that the recorded agreement did not express the intent of the parties regarding usage. The district court reformed the recorded agreement consistent with its determination that the parties intended to grant each other non-exclusive, non-transferrable licenses to use each other’s property. The court granted a written, express easement in favor of Welu and Platt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Platt and Welu’s mutual mistake claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) considering extrinsic evidence to interpret and reform the parties’ contract. View "Platt v. Held" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court adjudicating Teton Cooperative Canal Company’s (Teton Canal) water rights on remand from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. The court held that the Water Court did not commit clear error by (1) apportioning volume limits for Teton Canal’s 1890 water right claims and the junior 1936 Eureka Reservoir claims; (2) removing the Eureka Reservoir as storage under the 1890 notice while allowing the Glendora Reservoir’s storage capacity to be added to the volume limit under the 1890 notice; (3) permitting Teton Canal to store its 1890 direct flow water in the Eureka Reservoir during irrigation season; and (4) allowing Teton Canal a year-round period of diversion for the 1890 notice. View "Teton Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Reservoir Co." on Justia Law