Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Carl and Karen were married in 1993. In 1995, Karen made Carl a co-owner of certain property. In 2007, the county clerk recorded a quit claim deed transferring Carl's interest in the property back to Karen. When the parties divorced in 2009, the district court concluded that Karen was the owner of the property and that the $100,000 increase in the property's value from 1993 to 2009 was due to market force and had nothing to do with any contributions made by Carl. In 2012, Carl filed a complaint alleging that Karen fraudulently forged Carl's signature on the deed to the property and that Alta, another defendant, notarized the forged signature. The district court dismissed the complaint on the grounds that the two-year statute of limitations for fraud claims had run. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) correctly determined that Carl's fraud claim was barred by the statute of limitations; but (2) erred by awarding fees and costs to Defendants. View "Kananen v. South" on Justia Law

After Edwin and Linda divorced, Linda obtained a New Jersey judgment ordering Edwin to pay $695,477 in unpaid alimony, unpaid child support, medical expenses, and attorney fees and costs. Linda subsequently filed a motion seeking to satisfy the New Jersey judgment with Edwin's interest in a Nevada limited liability corporation (BMR) licensed to do business in Montana and with assets in Montana. A writ of execution was issued against Edwin, and thereafter, the district court issued a charging order and an order for the appointment of a receiver, for foreclosure of the lien, and for the sale of BMR's property. Edwin subsequently filed a motion for relief from the charging order and order for the appointment of the receiver foreclosure of the lien, which the district court denied after concluding that Edwin's arguments were waived because he had foregone earlier opportunities to challenge the two orders on the bases he asserted. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court correctly applied the law of the case doctrine to deny Edwin's motion; and (2) because Edwin's appeal was vexatious and filed for the purposes of delay, costs and fees assessed should be solely levied against Edwin. Remanded. View "Jonas v. Jonas" on Justia Law

Respondent purchased a 240-acre parcel of land in Gallatin County in 1980 that he rented out for grain and hay production. Respondent subdivided a thirty-acre parcel of the property in 1995. The subdivision was known as Bridger Lake Meadows (BLM). Respondent adopted covenants for BLM at the time he subdivided the property reflecting his intent that the lots be used for private residential purposes. However, Respondent sold no lots in BLM, which remained in hay and grain production. In 2009, the Department his Revenue (DOR) reclassified BLM from agricultural land to residential land. Respondent requested an informal review with DOR on the grounds that nothing had changed on the land or its usage. DOR denied the request due to the restrictions imposed by the covenants. The State Tax Appeal Board (STAB) determined that Respondent's property satisfied the statutory test for agricultural classification. The district court affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Respondent's continued use of the land for agricultural purposes belied any claim that the covenants "effectively prohibit" agriculture as contemplated by the amendment to Mont. Code Ann. 15-7-202(5). View "State Dep't of Revenue v. Heidecker" on Justia Law

This case involved a dispute between Johnny Hughes and his parents, Jack and Shirley Hughes, regarding borrowed money, the partition of jointly owned real property and accompanying water rights, and a contested pasture lease. The district court ruled in favor of Johnny on all of the issues except for the water rights. The Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, holding (1) the jury's determination that Johnny paid interest on a promissory note executed in favor of Jack and Shirley in 1989 restarted the statute of limitations on the note, and therefore, the matter was remanded to consider the amount of principal and interest Johnny owed on the note; (2) the partition agreement between the parties dissolved whatever right Jack and Shirley may have possessed in a life estate on a house on the land Johnny received pursuant to the agreement or to insurance proceeds Johnny received after the house was destroyed by fire; (3) Jack was entitled to an easement for stock water across Johnny's property; and (4) the arbitrator who arbitrated the pasture lease did not exceed his authority or miscalculate damages. View "Hughes v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Bruce Nelson subdivided property in the 1970s. Appellant claimed he purchased tract eighteen from Nelson ten days after Nelson filed the plat. Appellant claimed that at the time of the conveyance, Nelson guaranteed that it would not sell adjoining tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee filed a notarized declaration four years later. In 2005, however, Nelson sold tracts sixteen and seventeen. Appellee purchased tracts sixteen and seventeen in 2008. Appellee filed a quiet title action to clear her title of any cloud that may have arisen as a result of Appellant's declaration. The district court granted summary judgment for Appellee, concluding that Appellant's declaration did not create a restriction on development and that there was no restriction on the property prohibiting the sale of the disputed tracts. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in granting summary judgment to Appellee. View "Pennington v. Flaherty" on Justia Law

When Father and Mother divorced, the district court ordered Father to pay child support. After Father failed to make child support payments, the Child Support Enforcement Division (CSED) of the Department of Public Health and Human Services (Department) placed a support lien on all of his property. After Father and Mother's divorce, Mother married Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Mother subsequently divorced pursuant to a final decree of dissolution in which Mother assigned to Plaintiff her interest in the child support lien. Thereafter, Plaintiff commenced a proceeding against Father seeking to foreclose on the CSED support lien. The district court granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, ordering that Plaintiff could foreclose on the child support lien. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Plaintiff was precluded from obtaining an enforceable interest in the support lien, as, under Montana law, the Department alone held the rights to and was authorized to foreclose on the child support lien. Remanded. View "LeCount v. Davis" on Justia Law

A trust (Trust) purchased lots in an RV park. The purchase agreement for the lots granted Trust an easement for access to a lake over and across lakefront property. At the time of the purchase, the lake property was encumbered by a deed of trust issued by Bank. After the owners of the lake property became delinquent on their loan obligations, Bank attempted to foreclose on the lake property by way of a trustee's sale, at which it purchased the property. Because Bank failed to provide Trust with notice of the sale, Bank subsequently noticed a second trustee's sale of the lake property, this time providing notice to Trust. Trust filed a complaint against Bank, claiming the Bank was precluded from holding the second sale and that it therefore could not extinguish its easement via the second sale. Bank subsequently purchased the property at the second trustees sale. The district court concluded (1) the first trustee's sale was invalid, but the second trustee's sale was valid; and (2) Trust's easement claims were therefore subordinate to Bank's interests in the lake property. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded that Bank effectively foreclosed on Trust's easement through the second trustee's sale. View "Terry L. Bell Generations Trust v. Flathead Bank of Bigfork" on Justia Law

Plaintiff purchased property from Defendants in 1993. The warranty deed for the property contained no express mention of water rights, ditch easements, or appurtenances. Plaintiff nevertheless believed that a water right came with the property and that a ditch easement existed to transport the water to his property. Defendants later purchased real property which historically contained a ditch. It was subsequently discovered the property did have a ditch that traversed from a creek, across Defendants' property, to a 20-acre "place of use" on the properly now owned by Plaintiff. Plaintiff subsequently attempted to reopen use of the ditch and filed an action against Defendants seeking a declaration that he had a ditch easement across Defendants' property. The district court ruled in favor of Defendants. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly determined that Plaintiff had no ditch easement across property owned by Defendants. View "Roland v. Davis" on Justia Law

After Maxine's family contributed financially to help her keep her house, Maxine transferred title of the property to the Maxine Lane Irrevocable Trust. The Trust Agreement provided that if the property was sold during Maxine's lifetime, $50,000 was to be paid to each of Maxine's brothers. Later, Maxine consented to the sale of the property, and the Trust received $176,469 in net proceeds. The Trustee indicated she was obligated to make $50,000 distributions to Maxine's brothers as stated in the Trust and then use the remaining proceeds for Maxine's support. Maxine filed a declaratory judgment action against the Trustee, asking the district court to determine whether the Trust required the sale proceeds to be used to purchase another residence for Maxine, or whether the Trust required the $50,000 distributions be made. The district court granted summary judgment to Linda, concluding that the Trust mandated the Trustee to make the distributions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court correctly concluded the Trust Agreement required the Trust to make the $50,000 distributions upon the sale of the property. View "Lane v. Caler" on Justia Law

To help finance her purchase of a condominium (condo) for $395,000, Mary McCulley sought a residential loan from Heritage Bank (Bank) for $300,000. American Land Title Company (ALTC) provided a commitment for title insurance. McCulley signed a promissory note and signed a deed of trust as collateral. Subsequently, ALTC changed the designated use of the condo in the deed from residential to commercial. After closing, McCulley discovered the Bank had issued her an eighteen-month, $300,000 commercial property loan rather than the thirty-year residential property loan for which she applied. When she was unable to obtain long-term refinancing on the property, McCulley signed a warranty deed transferring ownership of the condo to the Central Asia Institute and used the proceeds to pay off the loan. McCulley then sued ALTC and the Bank (collectively, Defendants) for, inter alia, negligence, breach of contract, slander of title, and fraud. The district court granted summary judgment for Defendants. The Supreme Court (1) reversed the district court's order of summary judgment in favor of the Bank on the issue of fraud, as genuine issues of material fact existed relative to McCulley's claim of fraud on the part of the Bank; and (2) otherwise affirmed. View "McCulley v. Am. Land Title Co." on Justia Law