Justia Real Estate & Property Law Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court issuing a decree quieting title to a claimed easement in favor of Rose Family Trust (Rose), holding that the district court did not err by determining that a "notice of purchaser's interest" (NPI) did not convey title to the easement in dispute.Rose filed this action to quiet title and to enjoin use of the claimant easement by Appellants. The district court ruled in favor of Rose, holding that the NPI at issue did not constitute a valid instrument of conveyance and therefore did not transfer any easement rights to Appellants. On appeal, Appellants argued that the NPI was itself an instrument of conveyance and, alternatively, that the NPI functioned as an abstract of an instrument of conveyance. The Supreme Court disagreed and affirmed, holding that neither the NPI nor the abstracted contract for deed effectuated title transfer, and therefore, there was no actual conveyance on which Appellants could base their claim. View "Towsley v. Stanzak" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the summary judgment ruling of the district court and resulting final judgment granting Plaintiff judgment that Plaintiff was the sole owner of a formerly co-owned family cabin property and denying Defendant's constructive fraud counterclaim, holding that that the district court erred in part.At issue was cabin property located on land owned by the United States Forest Service in Granite County, Montana. Plaintiff brought this action seeking declaratory judgment that he was the sole owner of the property and asserting a claim for quiet title. Defendant asserted a counterclaim alleging constructive fraud. The district court ruled in favor of Plaintiff. The Supreme Court reversed in part, holding that the district court (1) did not err in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on his asserted declaratory judgment and quiet title claims; but (2) erred in granting summary judgment to Plaintiff on Defendant's constructive fraud counterclaim. View "Drescher v. Malee" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court granting summary judgment for Leonard Schleder and declaring him the owner of the mineral rights at issue in this case, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion.Specifically, the Supreme Court held that the district court (1) correctly interpreted the warranty deed language to reserve to Schleder all his mineral interests in the property; (2) properly considered the chain of title in interpreting the language of the unambiguous warranty deed; and (3) did not err in determining that estoppel by deed did not apply to prevent Schleder from asserting title to the mineral interests. View "Dellit v. Schleder" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order entered by the district court denying Skyline Consulting Group's motion to vacate and set aside bond substitution and reinstate construction lien, holding that the district court erred in concluding that Skyline had waived its right to challenge the substitute bond.In this dispute between two subcontractors, Mortensen Woodwork petitioned the district court to substitute Skyline's construction lien against certain property with the intent to pursue foreclosure. Skyline named SP Hotel Owner in the lien. Mortensen then secured a bond from a surety company for 150 percent of the amount Skyline claimed and filed a petition to substitute the bond for the lien. The district court did so. Skyline requested that the district court reinstate its lien because Mortensen was not authorized to substitute a bond. The district court denied the request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Skyline did not waive its right to challenge the substitute bond in a separate arbitration proceeding; and (2) the district court erred in concluding that Montana law authorized Mortensen, a subcontractor, to substitute a bond for Skyline's construction lien. View "Skyline Consulting Group v. Mortensen Woodwork, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, decree of foreclosure, and order of sale by the district court, and the orders and actions contained within these documents, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Thermal Design, Inc. filed a complaint to foreclose its construction lien against Mark and Pam Duffy and Central Copters, Inc. The complaint also asserted claims against TNT Building Systems. A jury found that TNT, acting as an agent of Central Copters, entered into a contract with Thermal Design for the insulation system, and both TNT and Central Copters were jointly and severally liable for breaching the contract with Thermal Design. As to a crossclaim between TNT and Central Copters, the jury found that both parties breached their agreement but that only TNT incurred damages. The district court entered a final order restating that, as a matter of law, Thermal Design had a valid construction lien attaching to both the Duffys’ real property and Central Copters’ building that should be foreclosed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in the proceedings below. View "Thermal Design, Inc. v. Thorson" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the preliminary injunction entered by the district court enjoining Defendant from inhibiting Plaintiff's use of a disputed road over Defendant's property during the pendency of the proceedings to determine Plaintiff's rights, holding that there was no error or abuse of discretion.Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging that it had legal access to the disputed road and requested injunctive relief. After a hearing, the district court granted preliminary injunctive relief to Plaintiff enjoining Defendants from inhibiting Plaintiff's access to the road. Defendants appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not obviously, evidently, or unmistakably abuse its discretion by granting preliminary injunctive relief in this case. View "Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Thomas Mann Post No. 81 of the American Legion, department of Montana (Legion) and denying Knudsen Family Limited Partnership's (KFLP) motion for summary judgment against the Town of Culbertson, holding that to the extent the court ostensibly expanded the scope of an easement the ruling was reversed.This action stemmed from a property dispute as to whether Legion had an easement across KFLP's ranch property to access Legion Park in Culbertson. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment in part, holding (1) to the extent the district court ostensibly expanded a 1913 written easement by granting summary judgment against KFLP on the Town's complaint, this was in error; (2) the district court did not err in ruling that Legion had an implied easement by preexisting use; and (3) the district court erred in awarding attorney fees without holding an evidentiary hearing on the reasonableness of the award. View "Thomas Mann Post v. Knudsen Family Ltd. Partnership" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to ERA Advantage Realty, Inc. and dismissing Jodie Young's complaint alleging that Advantage's brokers were negligent in failing to disclose certain issues when she was buying her home, holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion.In her complaint, Young alleged negligence because Advantage's brokers failed to disclose that local zoning ordinances preluded her from enclosing her yard with a fence and constructive fraud for failure to disclose a mold problem in her basement. The district court granted summary judgment to Advantage, holding that Young could not sustain her claims because she failed to submit notice of a real estate expert who could establish the standard of care applicable to real estate agents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Young's duty-based claims failed as a matter of law and that this conclusion was dispositive. View "Young v. Era Advantage Realty" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court denying Appellants' motion for partial summary judgment and dismissing their inverse condemnation claim against the City of Billings, holding that the district court did not err.Appellants, who owned and resided in a home within the City limits, brought this action seeking to recover damages when 1,000 gallons of raw sewage backed up into their basement. The district court dismissed Appellants' sole claim of inverse condemnation because they did not establish that their damage was caused by the deliberate actions of the City. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Appellants failed to establish that the sewer backup was a constitutional damages of their basement for public use, and thus, a condemnation. View "Wittman v. City of Billings" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and dismissing a complaint alleging that DEQ violated the Montana Environmental Policy Act (MEPA), holding that DEQ was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.Montana Rivers, the Gallatin Wildlife Association, and Cottonwood Environmental Law Center (collectively, Plaintiffs) brought this lawsuit alleging that DEQ violated MEPA by failing to supplement a 2007 environmental impact statement (EIS) that DEQ had prepared for a proposed rulemaking by the Board of Environmental Review (Board). In 2013, the Board declined to proceed with that rulemaking by ending its notice and comment period and letting the process expire. The district court ruled that Plaintiffs had no viable MEPA cause of action because there was no longer any contemplated state action for which to supplement the EIS. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in concluding that there was no proposed state action pending that would obligate DEQ to prepare or supplement a MEPA analysis. View "Montana Rivers v. Montana Dep't of Environmental Quality" on Justia Law