Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant rented second-floor office space and owned one of the upper-floor residential units in the Baxter Hotel. In 2008, the Baxter Homeowners Association (BHA) restricted access to the hotel's elevator by only permitting unit owners and their tenants to access the elevator via swipe key cards. After Appellant filed a complaint with the Montana Human Rights Bureau (Bureau), the BHA board installed a time clock system that would keep the elevator unlocked during business hours and locked at night. Appellant subsequently moved his law office out of the building. Ultimately, a hearing officer with the Bureau concluded that BHA violated Mont. Code Ann. 49-2-304(1)(a) when it failed to provide a reasonable alteration to the elevator to permit disabled persons to have unfettered access to the second floor business offices in the hotel during business hours, awarded $6,000 in damages to Appellant, and denied both parties' requests for attorneys' fees. The Human Rights Commission affirmed. The district court reversed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellant did not possess proper standing to file a complaint of discrimination on behalf of his unidentified and potential clients. View "Baxter Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Angel" on Justia Law

Defendant purchased a vacation home in Ptarmigan Village in Montana. Defendant lived primarily in Arizona. Ptarmigan Owner's Association (Ptarmigan), which managed the units that comprised the Ptarmigan homeowner's association, filed a lien on Defendant's house when Defendant stopped paying fees and dues to Ptarmigan. After Ptarmigan filed a complaint to foreclose on its lien, it mailed the summons and complaint to an Arizona Postal Plus mailbox that Defendant had on file with Ptarmigan. The Arizona constable failed to locate Defendant through the mailbox and informed Ptarmigan that Defendant had not been served. Ptarmigan published the complain and summons, and after Defendant failed to appear in response to the summons, the district court granted default judgment in favor of Ptarmigan. Defendant filed a motion to set aside the default judgment, claiming that Ptarmigan never properly served him. The district court failed to set aside the default judgment. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the circumstances here authorized service by publication; and (2) Ptarmigan did not act in bad faith or deliberately conceal the lawsuit from Defendant. View "Ptarmigan Owner's Ass'n v. Alton" on Justia Law

This action arose from easement disputes at Big Sky Lake. Plaintiffs were homeowners who owned lakeshore lots. The access road was owned by the Homeowners Association and provided the access to each lakeshore lot. Later, the larger tracts of land outside the access road were divided between the Hollinger and Williams families. The Hollingers' land did not abut the lakeshore and did not abut the lakeshore lots. Plaintiffs claimed a right, based upon language in various documents that arose from the initial development of the lake, to an express easement allowing them the unrestricted use of four roads or trails on the Hollingers' lands for motorized access. After the Hollingers installed gates at several points to block motorized access to the disputed roads, Plaintiffs sued in district court. The district court granted summary judgment to the Hollingers, holding that none of the documents relied upon by Plaintiffs established an easement across the Hollingers' land. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly applied the facts and the law to conclude that Plaintiffs had not established any right to easements over the Hollingers' land. View "Thayer v. Hollinger" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs were a group of landowners who owned properties abutting South Avenue in the City of Missoula. This lawsuit arose out of dispute between Plaintiffs and the City concerning the width of a public right-of-way constituting South Avenue. Following a bench trial, the district court determined that the right-of-way was sixty feet wide. Because the City's recent improvements to South Avenue extended beyond this sixty-foot parameter, the district court concluded that the City had effected a taking of property and awarded Plaintiffs compensation for the taking as well as their requested costs and attorney's fees. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court on all but two issues, holding that the district court (1) applied an incorrect measure of compensation; and (2) erroneously barred Plaintiffs' counsel from passing on to his clients the costs and fees incurred in proving underlying litigation expenses other than attorney's fees. Remanded. View "Wohl v. City of Missoula" on Justia Law

Appellant owned 5,400 contiguous acres of mostly undeveloped farmland in Chouteu County. Appellant filed a claim seeking declaratory relief regarding whether the entire length of a road that ran through Appellant's property, Lippard Road, constituted a public roadway. The district court determined that the entire length of Lippard Road constituted a public roadway. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the district court properly viewed the record as a whole, pursuant to the principles of Reid v. Park, to determine whether the County had established a public road; and (2) the district court properly determined that the entire length of Lippard Road constitutes a public roadway. View "Sayers v. Chouteau County" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs acquired the assets of a restaurant. Defendant owned the real property on which the building was located. Plaintiffs and Defendant entered into an agreement granting Plaintiffs a ten-year lease of Defendant's real property. The lease granted Plaintiffs the option to purchase Defendant's real property in 1999 at the expiration of the lease. Plaintiffs claimed they provided written notice to Defendant of their interest in purchasing the property and that Defendant agreed to the appointment of an independent appraiser in 2000, but Defendant never followed through in procuring an appraisal. In 2009, Plaintiffs filed a complaint requesting a declaratory judgment and order requiring Defendant to select an independent appraiser and sell the property. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint on statute of limitations grounds and granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment on her unlawful detainer counterclaim. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a set of facts that would enable them to equitably estop Defendant from raising her statute of limitations defense; and (2) the district court did not improperly consider matters outside the pleadings in reaching its decision to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint. View "Situ v. Smole" on Justia Law

This was the fourth appeal involving public access across Appellee's Teton County property. In previous litigation, Public Land/Water Access Association established public prescriptive easements over two roads and a bridge connecting the roads, which together formed a route across the property. In this appeal, the Association challenged a decision of the district court denying its petition for supplemental relief and dismissing its complaint against Appellee for damages resulting from his removal of the bridge. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the district court erred by dismissing the Association's claims and denying its petition for supplemental relief after Appellee removed the bridge, as (1) the district court's dismissal of the Association's complaint was based on an incorrect legal interpretation; and (2) given the scope of the prescriptive easement, the Association was entitled to consideration of its petition for supplemental relief. View "Pub. Land/Water Access Ass'n, Inc. v. Jones" on Justia Law

Defendant jointly owned real property as tenants in common with her sister, Plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a partition action, seeking equitable partition of the property or, in the alternative, a forced sale of the property and equal division of the net sale proceeds. Three partition referees appointed by the district court submitted a final report recommending that the property be divided into two parcels. Defendant presented offers of proof challenging the referees' final report, but the district court confirmed the proposed partition. Defendant appealed, arguing that the district court erred by denying her request for an evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's final partition judgment, holding (1) when a party makes a substantiated claim of factual or legal error in the referees' report, due process and equitable concerns require the district court to hold a hearing to determine whether the referees' report equitably divides the real property prior to confirming, changing, or modifying the report; and (2) in this case, Defendant's objections were sufficient to compel the district court to hold an evidentiary hearing. Remanded for an evidentiary hearing. View "Britton v. Brown" on Justia Law

Kristy Johnston, Judy Olsen, and their mother, Joyce Johnston, owned real property as tenants in common. Joyce left her one-third interest in the property to Kristy when she died. Kristy sent a letter to Judy in 2009 in which she offered to buy Judy's interest in the property or to sell her interest to Judy. Judy accepted Kristy's offer to sell. Kristy subsequently attempted to reject Judy's acceptance and revoke her offer to sell. Judy filed a complaint against Kristy. The court granted Judy's motion for summary judgment, determining that the letters exchanged between Judy and Kristy had created an enforceable contract that satisfied the statute of frauds. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the parties' exchange of letters created an enforceable contract. View "Olsen v. Johnston" on Justia Law

Defendant owned a building and leased spaced in the building to Company. Plaintiff worked as an independent contractor for Company, providing cleaning services. After Plaintiff injured himself while working in Defendant's building, Plaintiff sued Defendant. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the district court erred in applying construction industry liability standards to this case and in determining that Defendant owed no duty that Defendant as a property owner had a duty of care to Plaintiff because Plaintiff was an independent contractor working for Company; and (2) the court further erred in granting summary judgment to Defendant based upon the determination that "no reasonable jury" could find that Defendant had breached the duty of ordinary care under the facts of the case. View "Steichen v. Talcott Props., LLC " on Justia Law