Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

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

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellant's petition compelling Appellee, the Missoula County Clerk and Recorder, to record Appellant's certificate of survey (COS), holding that Appellee did not have a clear legal duty to record the COS.The district court dismissed Appellant's petition for writ of mandamus, finding that Appellee was not under a clear, non-discretionary, legal duty to record Appellant's COS bearing language certifying that a subdivision qualified for an exemption that the relevant reviewing authority found to be inapplicable and declined to approve. The Supreme Court affirmed holding that the district court was correct in dismissing the petition for writ of mandamus because Appellee was not under a clear legal duty to record a COS bearing a certification of exemption from sanitary review that Appellant was not approved for. View "Richards v. Gernant" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order denying the petition filed by the City of Bozeman seeking judicial review of a final order of the Department of Natural Resources (DNRC) granting Utility Solutions, LLC's application to change a water right, holding that the court did not err in determining that the City's water facility plan did not qualify as an interest protectable from adverse effects under Mont. Code Ann. 85-2-402(2)(a).Utility Solutions filed its change application for authorization to change the place of use of its water use permit. The City filed an objection, arguing that the application would adversely affect the City's possessory interest in the area that was established by the City's adoption of a growth policy, as expanded geographically by an updated water facility plan. The DNRC hearing examiner granted the change application, concluding that although the change application resulted in a geographic overlap of the place of use with the City's water facility plan, the overlap did not result in an adverse effect within the meaning of section 85-2-402(2)(a). The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in affirming the DNRC's determination that Utility Solutions carried its burden to prove the City did not have an interest protectable from adverse effects. View "City of Bozeman v. Montana Department of Natural Resources & Conservation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court affirming the Acting Roosevelt County Superintendent of School's grant of a territory transfer from Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 to Froid Elementary School District No. 65 pursuant to Mont. Code Ann. 20-6-105, holding that the Acting Superintendent did not abuse her discretion, and that Poplar's constitutional challenges failed.On appeal, Poplar argued that the Acting Superintendent's decision granting the territory transfer petition constituted an abuse of discretion and that section 20-6-105, the territory transfer statute, is unconstitutional both facially and as applied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly determined that the Acting Superintendent did not abuse her discretion in granting the petition to transfer the transfer territory; (2) the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred Poplar's facial constitutional challenge; and (3) Poplar's as-applied challenge failed because a school district does not have a constitutional right to due process. View "Poplar Elementary School District No. 9 v. Froid Elementary School District No. 65" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the orders of the district court holding Plaintiff liable for additional taxes Defendants owed as a result of Plaintiff's prepayment on the contract, holding that Plaintiff was obligated to pay additional taxes that were incurred by Defendants over the term of the contract.Plaintiff entered into an agreement with Defendants for the purchase of real property. Plaintiff later sued, alleging that its obligations under the agreement were satisfied and seeking an order requiring Defendants to reconvey the property to Plaintiff. Defendants counterclaimed for breach of contract. After a trial, the district court held that Plaintiff had not fulfilled all obligations under the contract. The court awarded Defendants damages and denied Defendants' request for prejudgment interest on the damage award. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly found that Plaintiff did not extinguish its obligations under the contract; (2) correctly denied Defendants' motion for prejudgment interest; but (3) erred when it interpreted the relevant documents to obligate Plaintiff to pay the additional taxes that were incurred by Defendants in the year the prepayment was made instead of the total additional taxes Defendants incurred over the term of the contract. View "First National Properties, LLC v. Hilstead Trust" on Justia Law