Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

In this property dispute, the Supreme Court affirmed the summary judgment order entered by the district court in favor of Old Public National Title Insurance Company and Security Title and Abstract Company (collectively, Defendants) upon the parties' stipulated "threshold legal issue" regarding Defendants' duty to Plaintiffs, holding that the district court did not err.At issue was whether Defendants owed a legal duty arising out of their issuance of a preliminary title commitment. Plaintiffs filed this action alleging negligence, professional negligence, and negligent misrepresentation on the part of Defendants when conducting a title examination. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs' claims were foreclosed because the statutes governing the issuance of a title insurance policy did not impose a duty with respect to an offer of title insurance in a preliminary commitment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' claims could not be sustained. View "Phipps v. Old Republic National Title Insurance Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) on Alexander and Ilma Brishkas' claims of inverse condemnation, negligence, and attorney fees and costs, holding that the district court did not err.The Brishkas sued MDT alleging that the breach of their 4.5 million-gallon, manmade fishpond on their property resulted from MDT's improvement of Montana Highway 487. The next year, Michael and Stacey Covey and the Covey Trust (collectively, the Coveys) sued the Brishkas for damages suffered to their property as a result of the breach of the pond. The jury returned a verdict against the Brishkas and award damages to the Coveys. Thereafter, MDT filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted the motion, concluding that the Brishkas were collaterally estopped from relitigating the issues of proximate cause and damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that the elements of collateral estoppel were satisfied and that the Brishkas' claims were precluded. View "Brishka v. Department of Transportation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Bob Walden and Sylvan Walden on their negligence suit against Yellowstone Electric Company (YECO), holding that the district court did not err.The Waldens were moving cattle north on a portion of Montana Highway 24 when Thomas Newell, who was driving a truck owned by YECO, ran into the cattle, killing ten heifers. The Waldens brought suit alleging negligence. The district court determined that Newell and YECO, as Newell's employer, were negligent as a matter of law in causing the death of the Waldens' cows. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that there was no error in the proceedings below. View "Walden v. Yellowstone Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed an order issued by the district court denying a motion for substitution of judge that was made after the Supreme Court reversed the summary judgment order of the district court and remanded the case for further proceedings, holding that the district court erred in denying the motion for substitution for judge.This matter arose from condemnation proceedings concerning the water supply system serving the Missoula urban area. Mountain Water Company and Carlyle Infrastructure Partners, LP (collectively, Owners) filed a notice of constitutional question and motion for partial summary judgment, contending that Mont. Code Ann. 70-30-306(2) and (3) were unconstitutional. The district court determined that section 70-30-306 was constitutional facially and as-applied. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for limited discovery. On remand, Owners filed a motion for substitution of district judge. The district court denied the motion as untimely. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Owners were denied their right of substitution upon this Court's reversal of the district court's summary judgment order. View "Missoula v. Mountain Water Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court that Whitefish City did not engage in illegal spot zoning and reversed the district court's ruling that Whitefish City Ordinance 18-23, which specified additional conditional uses, violated the uniformity requirement found in Mont. Code Ann. 76-2-302(2), holding that the City acted within its discretion in enacting the ordinance.This case involved an undeveloped parcel in The Lakes neighborhood known as Area 2(c). IO2.5, a series member of IO-3, LLC, filed a request with the City to amend Ordinance 99-9 to allow use of a conditional use permit (CUP) instead of a planned unit development (PUD) to develop Area 2(c). The City Council approved the request and approved Ordinance 18-23, directing amendment of the official zoning map and permitting development of Area 2(c) through a CUP instead of a PUD. Plaintiffs brought this complaint alleging that Ordinance 18-23 violates the statutory uniformity requirement. The district court struck the portion of Ordinance 18-23 that specified additional conditional uses. The Supreme Court held that the district court (1) did not err in ruling that Ordinance 18-23 did not constitute spot zoning; and (2) erred in ruling that Ordinance 18-23 violated section 76-2-302(2)'s uniformity requirement. View "Hartshorne v. Whitefish" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing this action for breach of contract and declaratory judgment and declining to award attorney fees to either party, holding that the district court did not err.The owners of certain condominium units brought this action against the condominium owner after the developer unilaterally amended the condominium declaration to create a new homeowners' association to which new unit owners would belong, thus leaving existing unit owners in the original homeowners' association. The developer subsequently revoked the amendment to the declaration. The district court dismissed the case as moot. The court then refused to award attorney fees, ruling that neither party was a prevailing party. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in dismissing the case as moot and did not err in refusing to award attorney fees and costs. View "Heringer v. Barnegat Development Group, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court's judgment compelling Plaintiffs to survey a roadway easement adjudicated by a previous declaratory judgment in 2016 and denying their motion for clarification, holding that the court erred in failing to clarify the 2016 judgment and subject easement on the motion for clarification.In this long-running dispute over a private roadway, Plaintiffs challenged a district court order compelling them to survey a roadway easement adjudicated in 2016 by declaratory judgment, denying their motion for clarification of a subsequently discovered ambiguity between the metes and bounds description and accompanying map depiction of an easement in the underlying 1987 grant, and rescinding prior awards of attorney fees and costs. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court erroneously failed to construe the 1987 stipulation, 2016 judgment, and resulting law of the case and thus erred in failing to clarify the 2016 judgment and subject easement on Plaintiffs' motion for clarification. View "VanBuskirk v. Gehlen" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court concluding that a Fergus County road was private because Public Land/Water Access Association, Inc. (PLWA) had not proven the existence of a public road by prescriptive easement or petition, holding that the district court did not err.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court applied the correct legal standard for its review, the "record as a whole" standard set forth in Reid v. Park County, 627 P.2d 1210 (Mont. 1981); and (2) the district did not err in concluding that the disputed road was not a public road either by prescriptive easement or statutory methods. View "Public Land & Water Access Ass'n v. Robbins" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the post-judgment motions issued by the district court denying Plaintiff's Mont. R. Crim. P. 60(b) motion for relief and Mont. R. Civ. P. 62.1 motion for an indicative ruling, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.Plaintiff alleged that Defendant entered Plaintiff's property and shot his boat with a rifle. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Frost, and the Supreme Court affirmed. While Plaintiff's appeal was pending, Plaintiff filed the two motions at issue, alleging that he had discovered new evidence. The district court denied both motions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that it lacked jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Rule 60(b) motion; and (2) did not abuse its discretion by denying Plaintiff's Rule 62.1 motion. View "Moore v. Frost" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting various mortgage lenders and trustees summary judgment on Plaintiff's claims for negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, holding that genuine issues of material fact did not preclude summary judgment.Plaintiff filed an action asserting negligent loan supervision/administration, breach of the implied contract covenant of good faith and fair dealing, anticipatory declaratory judgment, and quiet title to mortgaged property. The district court granted summary judgment to Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting BOA summary judgment on Plaintiff's asserted negligence and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims. View "House v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n" on Justia Law