Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Property Owners in this case collectively owned numerous properties on or near Whitefish Lake in the Houston Lakeshore Area. The City of Whitefish had annexed several tracts and a section of road in the Houston Lakeshore Area. In 2005, the City passed a resolution annexing Whitefish Lake to its low water mark. In 2014, the City passed a resolution acknowledging the City’s decision to advance the Houston Lakeshore Area to the first priority area for annexation. Property Owners filed a complaint seeking a declaratory judgment that the City has no statutory authority combine separate tracts for purposes of annexation and that the Houston Lakeshore Area is not “wholly surrounded” by the City for purposes of annexation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) a city may annex multiple tracts or parcels under Montana Code Annotated Title 7, chapter 2, part 45; and (2) the district court correctly determined that the Houston Lakeshore Area was wholly surrounded for purposes of annexation. View "Houston Lakeshore Tract Owners v. City of Whitefish" on Justia Law

After the loan secured by Susan Alexander’s property went into default, Bank of America, N.A. (BANA) initiated foreclosure proceedings. The property was sold to BANA after a trustee’s sale. When Alexander refused BANA’s demand to vacate the property BANA filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Alexander. Alexander asserted counterclaims for breach of contract, breach of an oral agreement, and frivolous litigation. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of BANA, concluding that the foreclosure sale was valid and that Alexander was unlawfully holding possession of the property. The court also concluded that Alexander’s counterclaims were either barred by the statute of limitations or statute of frauds and that there was a lack of supporting evidence for her claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) BANA was entitled to summary judgment and a writ of assistance based on unlawful detainer; (2) Alexander failed to state a claim of fraud; (3) Alexander’s claims of breach of written or oral contract and breach of oral agreement were barred by the statute of limitations and statute of frauds; and (4) Alexander did not properly allege or offer supporting evidence for her claim of unjust enrichment. View "Bank of America, N.A. v. Alexander" on Justia Law

Sheri Lee hired Morgan Pierce, PLLP to represent her in a bankruptcy proceeding. Morgan Pierce subsequently filed notice of an attorney’s lien against five pieces of Lee’s real property for legal services rendered. Joseph Mulroy and Lee then entered into an agreement for two of the pieces of property against which Morgan Pierce’s lien was recorded. Thereafter, Mulroy filed a petition for interpleader and declaratory relief asking the district court to determine the validity of Morgan Pierce’s attorney’s lien. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mulroy and awarded his costs and fees. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred in holding that the agreement entered into between Morgan Pierce and Lee did not create a lien by consent. View "Mulroy v. Morgan Pierce, PLLP" on Justia Law

In Montana’s ongoing water rights claims adjudication proceedings, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) filed six water right claims related to one natural pothole and five reservoirs. The water sources were located wholly or partially on federal land. The BLM claimed the right to use each source for stock watering by its grazing permittees and for wildlife. Certain objectors (Objectors) raised objections to each claim, arguing that the BLM did not perfect any water rights. The Water Master recommended summary judgment in favor of the BLM on each claim. The Water Court granted partial summary judgment to the BLM and remanded a portion of the pothole claim to the Master for further proceedings. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Water Court correctly found that the BLM properly perfected state law water rights in the reservoirs; and (2) The Water Court did not err in granting partial summary judgment on the pothole claim. View "Bureau of Land Management - Barthelmess" on Justia Law

623 Partners, LLC obtained a judgment against R. Larry Hunter and Larry Hunter Development Co. (collectively Larry). In its effort to satisfy the judgment, 623 Partners alleged that properly originally owned by Hunter Development was fraudulently transferred to Larry Todd Hunter, Larry’s son. The district court concluded that the properly was fraudulently transferred in order to avoid subjecting the property to 623 Partners’ writ of attachment and that Todd was liable to 623 Partners for the proceeds he received from the sale of a parcel of the property. The Supreme Court affirmed. On remand, Todd argued that he was entitled to an offset from the judgment amount based on the value of the improvements that he made to the property and that the property was exempt from execution or forced sale because he had claimed it as his homestead. The district court rejected Todd’s assertions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in determining that Todd was not entitled to an offset and correctly concluded that Todd did not qualify for a homestead exemption. View "623 Partners, LLC v. Hunter" on Justia Law

Two zoning actions were at issue in this proceeding - the “Text Amendment” and the “Map Amendment.” Citizens for a Better Flathead and Sharon DeMeester (collectively, Citizens) initiated this action challenging the Board of County Commissioners of Flathead County’s adoption of both the Text Amendment and the Map Amendment. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Citizens. The Commissioners appealed. Uncertain over the scope of relief granted by the district court’s order, Citizens cross-appealed from any partial denial of the relief it sought. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court did not err by holding that the Map Amendment was invalid for failing to comply with statutory requirements; (2) the Text Amendment was not invalid for failure to comply with public participation requirements; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorneys’ fees to Citizens. View "Citizens For A Better Flathead v. Flathead County Commissioners" on Justia Law

At dispute in this case was the existence and use of an easement along Turk Road, a private road that ran through multiple properties. All parties in this case owned property accessed via Turk Road, which passed through portions of Defendants’ properties. This appeal concerned the right of Marc and Gloria Flora (Plaintiffs) to use Turk Road over two properties owned by four defendants (Defendants). Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that they had legal access along Turk Road as it passed through Defendants’ properties pursuant to an express easement. The Floras then moved for a preliminary injunction to enjoin Defendants from interfering with the Floras’ access along Turk Road. The district court granted the Floras a preliminary injunction because the Floras laid out a prima facie case for a prescriptive easement. The court then limited the easement to light-duty passenger vehicles. The Floras appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) granting the Floras’ motion for a preliminary injunction on the basis of a prescriptive easement theory rather than on an express public easement theory; and (2) limiting the Floras’ prescriptive easement to the use of passenger vehicles. View "Flora v. Clearman" on Justia Law

This case arose from Appellant’s objection to three water right claims owned by Granite County. Appellant objected to the County’s water right claims in proceedings before the Water Court, arguing that the 1906 decree in the case of Montana Water, Electric and Mining Co. v. Schuh required the County to release storage water to benefit downstream users. The Water Court rejected Appellant’s argument and granted summary judgment to Granite County. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the Water Court did not err in its interpretation of the Schuh decree; and (2) the Water Court properly considered and applied the principles of claim preclusion relied upon by Appellant to limit Granite County’s arguments concerning application of the Schuh decree. View "Granite County Commissioners v. McDonald" on Justia Law

This in rem forfeiture proceeding brought under Mont. Code Ann. 44-12-201 (2013), et seq. arose from Mike Chilinski’s alleged use of real property to manufacture dangerous drugs. The proceeding was unconnected to a state drug prosecution. The statute mandated that the proceeding be heard only before a judge, precluding the use of a jury. At the forfeiture proceeding, Chilinski argued that the forfeiture statute violated his right to a jury trial. The district court conducted the hearing without a jury, reasoning that the proceeding was an equitable action and thus outside the scope of the right to a jury trial. The district court then forfeited Chilinski’s property to the State. Chilinski appealed the district court’s denial of his right to a jury trial. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Mont. Code Ann. 44-12-203(3) (2013) violates Mont. Const. art II, 26 by depriving individuals of the right to a trial by jury; and (2) therefore, the district court erred when it denied Chilinski the right to a jury trial in these civil in rem forfeiture proceedings. View "State v. Items of Property" on Justia Law

Appellants owned property adjacent to Whitefish Lake, which the City of Whitefish has annexed. In 2005, Appellants petitioned the City for annexation of the property, and their petition was granted. In 2010, Appellants petitioned to have their property de-annexed. The City Council denied the petition. Appellants commenced a declaratory action in the district court challenging the decision. The district court dismissed the complaint on the basis of lack of service and on the ground that the statute of limitations for Appellants’ claims would bar any re-filed action. In 2014, Appellants filed another petition for de-annexation of their property. The City Council denied Appellants’ second petition for de-annexation, and Appellants filed a second declaratory action challenging the denial of their second petition. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding that Appellants’ action was barred by claim preclusion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by granting summary judgment on the basis of claim preclusion. View "Schweitzer v. City of Whitefish" on Justia Law