Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

David Platt and Steven Held purchased a ranch together and formalized their arrangement by entering into an operating agreement. Later, Held, Platt, and Tim Welu decided to divide the property into three parts, with each party owning 2,000 acres. After the land sale, all the parties entered into a recorded agreement. Later, the relationships soured. When Held refused to grant an easement across his property to Platt, Platt initiated this lawsuit, alleging easement by express grant, prescription and implication, and praying for reformation of the contract due to mutual mistake and fraud. Welu intervened, seeking reformation and alleging that the recorded agreement did not express the intent of the parties regarding usage. The district court reformed the recorded agreement consistent with its determination that the parties intended to grant each other non-exclusive, non-transferrable licenses to use each other’s property. The court granted a written, express easement in favor of Welu and Platt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Platt and Welu’s mutual mistake claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) considering extrinsic evidence to interpret and reform the parties’ contract. View "Platt v. Held" on Justia Law

David Platt and Steven Held purchased a ranch together and formalized their arrangement by entering into an operating agreement. Later, Held, Platt, and Tim Welu decided to divide the property into three parts, with each party owning 2,000 acres. After the land sale, all the parties entered into a recorded agreement. Later, the relationships soured. When Held refused to grant an easement across his property to Platt, Platt initiated this lawsuit, alleging easement by express grant, prescription and implication, and praying for reformation of the contract due to mutual mistake and fraud. Welu intervened, seeking reformation and alleging that the recorded agreement did not express the intent of the parties regarding usage. The district court reformed the recorded agreement consistent with its determination that the parties intended to grant each other non-exclusive, non-transferrable licenses to use each other’s property. The court granted a written, express easement in favor of Welu and Platt. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by (1) concluding that Platt and Welu’s mutual mistake claims were not barred by the statute of limitations; and (2) considering extrinsic evidence to interpret and reform the parties’ contract. View "Platt v. Held" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Montana Water Court adjudicating Teton Cooperative Canal Company’s (Teton Canal) water rights on remand from an earlier decision of the Supreme Court. The court held that the Water Court did not commit clear error by (1) apportioning volume limits for Teton Canal’s 1890 water right claims and the junior 1936 Eureka Reservoir claims; (2) removing the Eureka Reservoir as storage under the 1890 notice while allowing the Glendora Reservoir’s storage capacity to be added to the volume limit under the 1890 notice; (3) permitting Teton Canal to store its 1890 direct flow water in the Eureka Reservoir during irrigation season; and (4) allowing Teton Canal a year-round period of diversion for the 1890 notice. View "Teton Coop Canal Co. v. Lower Teton Joint Reservoir Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants and concluding that Plaintiffs did not have an easement to access a nearby airstrip located on Defendants’ property.Plaintiffs filed a complaint for declaratory, quiet title, injunctive and other relief against Defendants, arguing that they were entitled to access and use the airstrip from their property pursuant to the terms of a 1981 easement grant. The district court concluded that Plaintiffs’ property was not benefitted by an easement that would give Plaintiffs access to the airstrip. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs were not entitled to access an easement on Defendants’ property. View "Hudson v. Irwin" on Justia Law

Petitioner Atlantic Richfield Company (“ARCO”) petitioned the Montana Supreme Court seeking reversal of five district court orders. Relevant here, the underlying action concerned a claim for restoration damages brought by property owners in and around the town of Opportunity, Montana. As part of ARCO’s cleanup responsibility relating to the Anaconda Smelter, EPA required ARCO to remediate residential yards within the Smelter Site harboring levels of arsenic exceeding 250 parts per million in soil, and to remediate all wells used for drinking water with levels of arsenic in excess of ten parts per billion. The Property Owners, a group of ninety-eight landowners located within the bounds of the Smelter Site, sought the opinion of outside experts to determine what actions would be necessary to fully restore their properties to pre-contamination levels. The experts recommended the Property Owners remove the top two feet of soil from affected properties and install permeable walls to remove arsenic from the groundwater. Both remedies required restoration work in excess of what the EPA required of ARCO in its selected remedy. The Property Owners sued, seeking restoration damages. ARCO conceded that the Property Owners could move forward on their first four claims, but contended that the claim for restoration damages was preempted by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”). The Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the Property Owners’ claims for restoration damages was barred by CERCLA. View "Atlantic Richfield v. 2nd Jud. Dist" on Justia Law

In this case brought in connection with the sale of Plaintiffs’ home at a foreclosure sale, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court dismissing Plaintiffs’ asserted negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA) claims against Bank of America, N.A. and ReconTrust Company, N.A. pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to sufficiently state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court held (1) the district court correctly held that Plaintiffs’ amended complaint failed to state sufficient facts entitling them to relief on all essential elements of their asserted negligence, negligent misrepresentation, fraud, and MCPA claims; and (2) the district court did not err by not sua sponte converting ReconTrusts’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Mont. R. Civ. P. 12(d) upon the filing of an affidavit in support of Plaintiffs’ brief in opposition. View "Anderson v. ReconTrust Co., N.A." on Justia Law

The district court correctly concluded that Plaintiff owned certain disputed land bordering her property between the high- and low-water marks of Parker Lake, a small lake located in Flathead County, Montana.After Defendants pounded metal fence posts along the high-water mark bordering Plaintiff’s property Plaintiff filed this lawsuit asserting claims for declaratory judgment and in tort based on alleged trespass and nuisance. Plaintiff later filed an amended complaint adding counts of intentional interference with her contractual relationship with her realtors and slander of title. The district court granted summary judgment that Plaintiff owned the land between the high- and low-water marks of Parker Lake bordering Plaintiff’s property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly granted summary judgment declaring that Plaintiff owned the disputed land between the high- and low-water marks. View "Ash v. Merlette" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the determination of the district court to quiet title in certain property to Zinvest, LLC, holding that the Department of Revenue’s defective property tax assessment voided the tax lien sale that resulted in Zinvest acquiring the Gallatin County’s interest.Gunnersfield Enterprises Inc. purchased five condominium units and an adjoining vacant lot in 2008. The deed was properly recorded, and a realty transfer certificate was submitted to the Department of Revenue, but the Department did not correctly update its ownership records for the vacant lot. While Gunnersfield paid the tax assessments for the condominium units yearly, the County Treasurer continued to send the tax bills for the vacant lot to the previous owner. The Treasurer eventually sold the lot for delinquent taxes and assigned its tax lien interest in the property to Zinvest. After Zinvest acquired a tax deed on the property Gunnersfield objected. The district court granted summary judgment for Zinvest and issued a final judgment quieting title to Zinvest. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of judgment quieting title in Gunnersfield, holding that the tax assessment on the vacant lot was void, and therefore, the subsequent tax lien sale and issuance of a tax deed were also void. View "Zinvest v. Gunnersfield" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the water court that largely adopted the water master’s report dividing the four water rights for irrigation from Nevada Creek between James and Linda Quigley and Richard Beck based on a ratio of the irrigated acres owned by each party. The court held (1) the water court did not err in its interpretation of the 1909 Geary v. Raymond decree as decreeing water rights for irrigation to all of Finn Ranch, which was since divided into adjoining ranches owned by the Quigley and Beck; and (2) the water court did not err in applying the clear error standard to the water master’s findings of fact. View "Quigley v. Beck" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s denial of the portion of Plaintiffs’ motion motion for partial summary judgment seeking an order compelling Defendants to immediately remove trespassing encroachments on Plaintiffs’ property an to restore the property to its prior condition subject to Plaintiffs’ right to do so at Defendants’ expense if they failed to timely act. The court further affirmed the district court’s underlying grant of summary judgment declaring Defendants’ shop building and underground septic system to be trespassing encroachments on Plaintiffs’ property. Specifically, the court held that, at this stage in the proceedings, the district court’s interlocutory denial of preliminary or final mandatory injunctive relief was neither irreconcilable with its summary judgment declaring a trespass nor a manifest abuse of discretion. View "Davis v. Westphal" on Justia Law