Barrett, Inc. v. City of Red Lodge, DA 19-0345

• Docket Nº: DA 19-0345
• Citation: 457 P.3d 233, 2020 MT 26, 398 Mont. 436
• Case Date: February 04, 2020
• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Montana

398 Mont. 436
457 P.3d 233
2020 MT 26

BARRETT, INC., a Wyoming Corporation, Plaintiff and Appellant,
v.
CITY OF RED LODGE, and Red Lodge School District No. 1, Defendant and Appellee,
v.
Collaborative Design Architects, Inc., Respondent and Third-party Defendant.

DA 19-0345

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs: December 11, 2019
Decided: February 4, 2020

For Appellant: William A. D’Alton, D’Alton Law Firm P.C., Billings, Montana

For Appellees: Jon T. Dyre, Crowley Fleck PLLP, Billings, Montana (for Collaborative Design Architects, Inc.) Jeff A Weldon, Felt, Martin, Frazier & Weldon, P.C., Billings, Montana (for Red Lodge School District No. 1) Rebecca Narmore, City Attorney for Red Lodge, Missoula, Montana (for City of Red Lodge)

Justice Jim Rice delivered the Opinion of the Court.

398 Mont. 438

¶1 Barrett, Inc. (Barrett) appeals from the entry of summary judgment in favor of Collaborative Design Architects, Inc. (CDA), by the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court, Carbon County, declaring a prescriptive easement had been acquired over Barrett’s property for the Red Lodge High School’s secondary access route. The sole issue presented on appeal is whether the District Court erred by concluding the City of Red Lodge and the Red Lodge School District established a prescriptive easement, and granting summary judgment. We affirm.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶2 In 1902, the City of Red Lodge (City or Red Lodge) abandoned its right of way on Chambers Avenue north of the intersection of Chambers Avenue and 5th Street. The property that had been subject to the right of way was added to parcels lying on the east and west sides of the right of way, by dividing down the centerline. At all times pertinent to this case, Barrett owned lots to the west of the abandoned Chambers Avenue right-of-way, and Red Lodge owned the parcel to the east. In 2004, Red Lodge School District #1 (School District) leased the City’s parcel to build a new high school. One of the specifications of the conditional use permit issued by the City to the School District for construction of the high school was that the school would have two access roads.

¶3 CDA was the architect on the school construction project. CDA was instructed to extend Chambers Avenue north from the intersection with 5th Street, and to curve the road toward the northeast to connect the secondary access road with the school. Construction of the school began in 2007, and the access road was completed in 2008, when traffic use began.

¶4 In September 2016, Barrett hired Red Lodge Surveying to survey its property, which revealed that the access road encroached upon the Barrett lots by approximately 5 feet for an approximate length of 130 feet. Barrett took the position that, until this survey was completed, it

398 Mont. 439

had no actual notice of the encroachment upon its property.¹ On May 26, 2017, Barrett initiated this

457 P.3d 235

action against Red Lodge and the School District, alleging inverse condemnation, negligence, and state constitutional violations. Red Lodge filed a third party complaint that brought CDA into the litigation, alleging, inter alia , that CDA was "negligent in the design and building of the access road across [Barrett’s] property."

¶5 Following discovery, CDA moved for summary judgment, contending "the City of Red Lodge [ ] and/or the Red Lodge School District [ ] has acquired a prescriptive easement across Barrett’s property." The District Court granted the motion. Barrett appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶6 "We review appeals from summary judgment rulings de novo. We apply the same summary judgment evaluation, based on Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., as the district court." Taylor v. Mont. Power Co. , 2002 MT 247, ¶ 9, 312 Mont. 134, 58 P.3d 162 (internal citations omitted). "The movant must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist. Once this has been accomplished, the burden then shifts to the non-moving party to prove, by more than mere denial and speculation, that a genuine issue does exist. Having determined that genuine issues of fact do not exist, the court must then determine whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Taylor , ¶ 9. Summary judgment "should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). "Where the material facts are undisputed, we ‘must simply identify the applicable law, apply it to the uncontroverted facts, and determine who prevails.’ " Walker v. Phillips , 2018 MT 237, ¶ 9, 393 Mont. 46, 427 P.3d 92 (quoting Yorlum Props. Ltd. v. Lincoln County , 2013 MT 298, ¶ 12, 372 Mont. 159, 311 P.3d 748 ). " ‘[W]hether a party is entitled to judgment on the facts is a conclusion of law, which this Court reviews to

398 Mont. 440

determine whether it is correct.’ " Walker , ¶ 9 (quoting Yorlum Props ., ¶ 12 ).

DISCUSSION

¶7 Did the District Court err by concluding the City of Red Lodge and the Red Lodge School District established a prescriptive easement, and by granting summary judgment?

¶8 As a preliminary matter, Barrett argues the District Court erred by failing to identify any standard of proof when it determined the existence of a prescriptive easement, citing Wareing v. Schreckendgust , 280 Mont. 196, 930 P.2d 37 (1996), in which the Court stated that "a prescriptive easement claimant...