Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court reversing a Department of Natural Resources and Conservation (DNRC) contested case decision granting RC Resources, Inc. (RCR) a beneficial water use permit under pertinent provisions of the Montana Water Use Act (MWUA) - Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-301(1), -302(1), and -311 - holding that the district court erred.The permit at issue would have authorized RCR to annually appropriate 857 acre-feet of groundwater that will flow into the underground adits and works of the proposed Rock Creek Mine. Based on its construction of Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-311(1)(a)(ii)(B), the district court reversed the issuance of the beneficial use permit. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) DNRC correctly concluded that, as used in section 85-2-311(1)(a)(ii), "legal demands" does not include consideration of whether the subject use complies with applicable Montana Water Quality Act nondegradation standards; and (2) section 85-2-311(2) does not violate the right to a clean and healthful environment as applied to the objectors' MWQA nondegradation objections to the proposed MWUA beneficial use permit. View "Clark Fork Coalition v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court establishing the point of diversion for two claims owned by Carolyn Mack and Chriss Mack, holding that the Water Court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court (1) did not err when it concluded that it had jurisdiction over the Macks' amended statement of claim; (2) did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the Macks did not make any judicial admissions in previous litigation; (3) did not err in assigning the burden of proof to Appellants - Glenda, Jimmy, John, and Rowdy Anderson; and (4) did not abuse its discretion in excluding the Andersons' expert witness. Lastly, the Supreme Court held that the Water Court's findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and that there was substantial evidence supporting the Water Court's conclusion establishing the point of diversion for the Macks' claims. View "Mack v. Anderson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the district court determining that Brown Drake, LLC's operation of the Brown Drake Lodge did not violate the Craig Tracts Homeowners' Association's (HOA) amended covenant's requirement that the property be "used for residential purposes only," holding that the district court did not err.The HOA brought this action for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that Brown Drake's operation of the Lodge violated the amended covenants' requirement that property be used for residential purposes only. The district court ruled in favor of Brown Drake. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Brown Drake's operation of the Lodge did not violate the amendment covenants under the HOA. View "Craig Tracts Homeowners' Ass'n v. Brown Drake, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the district court interpreting and modifying a prior 2014 judgment that previously adjudicated that Plaintiffs had established various prescriptive easement rights over certain land before Defendants acquired it in the 1980s, holding that the court misinterpreted the 2014 judgment.Specifically, the Supreme Court held (1) the district court did not err when it concluded that Mont. R. Civ. P. 59-60 did not apply to Defendants' motions for subsequent interpretation and clarification of the 2014 judgment; (2) the district court erred when it construed the 2014 judgment as ambiguous on its face or in effect; and (3) the district court erroneously altered and amended the substance of the 2014 judgment inconsistent with its manifestly intended original meaning and effect. View "Meine v. Hren Ranches, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case involving a grant of easement and easement agreement between Roger Peters and Carrie Peters and Douglas Hubbards and Nathan Hubbards the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of the Peterses, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.The easement agreement in this case granted the Hubbards an easement to use a road crossing the Peterses' land. The Peterses later rescinded the agreement, but the Hubbards continued to use the road. The Peterses subsequently filed a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that the rescission was proper and that the Hubbards' rights under the agreement were terminated. The Hubbards filed a counterclaim asserting claims for a private prescriptive easement and a public prescriptive easement. The district court granted summary judgment for the Peterses on all issues. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err in interpreting the language of the easement agreement; (2) the Hubbards did not establish either a private or public prescriptive easement across the Peterses' property covered in the easement agreement; and (3) the district court properly awarded attorney fees to the Peterses. View "Peters v. Hubbard" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing K&J Investments, LLC's petition and complaint for judicial review, rescission, and unjust enrichment against the Flathead County Board of Commissioners and Flathead County Treasurer, holding that the district court properly dismissed all claims for want of jurisdiction.K&J, an investment company, purchased a tax sale certificate from Flathead County for the property at issue for $1,512. K&J later filed an application for refund and abatement due to alleged erroneous property assessments. The Flathead County Board of Commissioners denied the application. K&J filed a petition for judicial review seeking to reverse the Commissioners' denial of tax refund and abatement and including a complaint for rescission of the tax sale certificate and seeking relief for all taxes paid under a theory of unjust enrichment. The district court dismissed the petition and complaint, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because K&J did not follow the required process for seeking reassessment and exhausting administrative remedies. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Mont. Code Ann. 15-16-604 did not grant the district court authority to consider K&J's claims. View "K & J Investments, LLC v. Flathead County" on Justia Law