Justia Montana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Clayton DeVoe applied for a building permit for a large storage building to be located on a lot in an area zoned for single-family residences. The City of Missoula issued a building permit pursuant to applicable zoning regulations. After DeVoe began construction, the Board of Adjustment revoked DeVoe's building permit, finding that the storage building was in violation of the zoning regulations. DeVoe filed a civil action in the district court against, inter alia, the Board of Adjustment, the City, and two individuals. The district court granted the individuals' motions to dismiss and awarded attorney fees and costs to the individuals because DeVoe had forced them to defend a frivolous action. The court then upheld the Board's decision to revoke the building permit. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly upheld the decision of the Board revoking the building permit for DeVoe's storage building; and (2) the court did not err in awarding attorney fees and costs to the two individuals. View "DeVoe v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

H&H Development, LLC hired Jim Ramlow for legal services. In 2007, H&H filed a pro se complaint in Lake County against Ramlow and his law firm for professional negligence. Eleven days later, H&H, through counsel, filed a complaint in Flathead County against Eagle Bend, seeking damages based on allegations similar to those in the Lake County complaint. H&H settled with Eagle Bend. In 2010, H&H filed an amended Flathead County complaint that named Ramlow and his firm as defendants and included a lawyer's signature. The district court subsequently declared the Lake County complaint null and void after determining that a non-lawyer could not file a complaint on behalf of a limited liability company. Thereafter, the court granted summary judgment to Defendants on the amended complaint based upon the running of the applicable statute of limitations. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that a district court has discretion to determine whether a corporation should be able to relate back to an amended complaint signed by a lawyer, to its original, pro se complaint. Remanded to assess whether Mont. R. Civ. P. 15(c) permitted H&H's amended complaint in Flathead County to relate back to H&H's pro se Lake County complaint. View "H & H Dev., LLC v. Ramlow" on Justia Law

The City of Dillon entered an agreement with the McNeills allowing them to connect to a water main for their domestic water supply. Later, the City granted permission to the McNeills to activate an existing water service to their property. The Conners bought the McNeills' subdivided lot, and the City billed and collected for the water that was furnished to the Conners. The water main subsequently froze solid, leaving the Conners without water service for weeks. The Conners sued the City for breach of contract and negligence. The district court entered summary judgment for the City, concluding (1) there was no implied contract between the Conners and the City, and therefore, the Conners' water use was unlawful; and (2) the negligence claim was barred by City Ordinance 13.04.150, which provides that the City is not liable for claims from interruption of water service resulting from shutting off the water in its mains. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the City had a legal obligation to provide water to the Conners under an implied contract; and (2) section 13.04.150 did not bar the Conners' claims because the City did not decide to shut off the water service. View "Conner v. City of Dillon" on Justia Law

The Wagners owned property along a river, which was subject to restrictive covenants. Brian Woodward purchased adjacent property that was subject to the same covenants. Woodward later added onto the deck of the home he purchased and built a split-rail fence along his east and west property lines. The Wagners sued, claiming Woodward's additions violated the restrictive covenants. The district court determined (1) the fences did not violate the covenants, but (2) the deck addition violated the covenants. The court ordered Woodward to remove the deck addition. The Supreme Court reversed in part and vacated the district court's order requiring Woodward to remove the deck addition from his home, holding (1) any violation of the covenant by the deck addition was de minimus, and (2) given Woodward's detrimental reliance of the Wagners' failure to timely enforce the covenants as they pertained to his home and the absolute absence of damages to the Wagners, it would be inequitable to compel removal of the deck addition. View "Wagner v. Woodward" on Justia Law

Hobble Diamond Ranch, Robert and Susan Burch, and James Lowe, (collectively, Neighbors), appealed the district court's judgment affirming the Montana Department of Transportation's (DOT) decision to issue billboard sign permits under the Montana Outdoor Advertising Act. Neighbors sought removal of two billboards, arguing that the billboards were not in compliance with MOAA, DOT's granting of the permits was unlawful, and the billboards were a public nuisance. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court's ruling upholding the DOT decision was not arbitrary capricious, or unlawful, as the permit applications were in conformance with MOAA and DOT based its decision on sufficient evidence. View "Hobble Diamond Ranch v. State ex rel. Dep't of Transp." on Justia Law

The Fronks (Fronks) purchased two pieces of property from the Collinses (Collins), and the parties entered into an oral agreement whereby Collins would acquire horses and Collins would be entitled to keep the first foal from each mare as payment for their services. Fronks later transferred $215,000 to Collins for the acquisition of the horses. Fronks later deeded the properties back to Collins with the understanding that Collins would reconvey the land back to Fronks within five years. The parties subsequently signed an agreement setting forth each party's obligations. When Collins did not comply with the agreement, Fronks brought an action for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and misrepresentation seeking, inter alia, to enforce the agreement and recover damages, obtain ownership of the real property, and recover attorney fees. The district court determined that the agreement was a valid, enforceable contract and granted summary judgment to Fronks. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement was a valid contract and the agreement did not suffer from a lack of consent by virtue of duress or menace. View "Fronk v. Collins" on Justia Law

The Heins rented a house from Julia Benintendi and the Perkerwicz family (hereinafter B&P). B&P alleged the Heins caused considerable damage to the property when they vacated the premises. The Heins countered that B&P unlawfully retained their security deposit and refused to reimburse the Heins for home and lawn improvements. B&P sued and obtained a default judgment. The district court subsequently set aside the default judgment and held a jury trial. B&P were awarded damages but not attorney fees or costs. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part, holding (1) the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying attorney fees to both parties; (2) the district court incorrectly required each party to bear its own costs because, as the prevailing party, B&P was entitled to its costs under Mont. Code Ann. 25-10-101; and (3) the district court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in setting aside the default judgment because it had good cause to do so. View "Benintendi v. Hein" on Justia Law

The Slacks sued the County for damages due to the County's alleged failure to comply with its statutory obligation to notify the Slacks that the home they purchased was once the site of a clandestine methamphetamine laboratory. After a trial, the jury found the County was negligent and awarded the Slacks $563,592 in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed on all issues, holding (1) the County waived all the issues it raised on appeal; and (2) the district court properly denied the Slacks' motion for attorneys' fees because simply including attorneys' fees in a bill of costs does not entitle a party to recover attorneys' fees, and the County's defense was not frivolous or pursued in bad faith. View "Slack v. Landmark Co." on Justia Law

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.

After a fire damaged a building the Hinebauchs purchased from the McRaes, the Hinebauchs filed a complaint against the McRaes, alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The district court granted the McRaes' motion for summary judgment, determining (1) because no evidence was presented showing that the McRaes agreed to obtain insurance for the building naming the Hinebauchs as an insured party, there was a lack of mutual consent and the agreement was unenforceable; and (2) the Hinebauchs did not establish any requisite misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and the Hinebauchs had unclean hands in seeking equitable relief on the claim for unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the statute of frauds precluded the Hinebauchs from enforcing any promises ostensibly made to them by the McRaes; and (2) the Hinebauchs wholly failed to show any misconduct or fault on the part of the McRaes, and therefore, the Hinebauchs' claim for unjust enrichment was without merit.