Bennett v. Hill
| Citation | 378 Mont. 141,2015 MT 30,342 P.3d 691 |
| Decision Date | 03 February 2015 |
| Docket Number | No. DA 14–0355.,DA 14–0355. |
| Parties | Wendell E. BENNETT Jr. and Kathryne L. Bennett, Karla Lange, Schneiter Enterprises, LTD, Roger F. Dallner Trust, Plaintiffs and Appellants, Annette L. Efta and Aaron J. Efta, Paul T. Corcoran, Plaintiffs, v. Ronald S. HILL, individually, Specialized Construction, Inc., Ronald S. Hill, LLC, Lake Hills Golf, LLC, Defendants and Appellees. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
378 Mont. 141
342 P.3d 691
2015 MT 30
Wendell E. BENNETT Jr. and Kathryne L. Bennett, Karla Lange, Schneiter Enterprises, LTD, Roger F. Dallner Trust, Plaintiffs and Appellants
Annette L. Efta and Aaron J. Efta, Paul T. Corcoran, Plaintiffs
v.
Ronald S. HILL, individually, Specialized Construction, Inc., Ronald S. Hill, LLC, Lake Hills Golf, LLC, Defendants and Appellees.
No. DA 14–0355.
Supreme Court of Montana.
Submitted on Briefs Dec. 17, 2014.
Decided Feb. 3, 2015.
For Appellant: Kenneth D. Peterson, Attorney at Law; Billings, Montana.
For Appellee: David J. Dietrich, Jacob A. Yerger, Dietrich & Associates, P.C.; Billings, Montana.
Opinion
Justice MICHAEL E. WHEAT delivered the Opinion of the Court.
¶ 1 Wendell Bennett, Jr., Kathryne Bennett, Karla Lange, Schneiter Enterprises, LTD, and Roger F. Dallner Trust (“Appellants”) appeal from the orders of the Montana Thirteenth Judicial District Court, Yellowstone County, granting summary judgment and ordering attorney fees in favor of Ronald Hill, Specialized Construction, Inc., Ronald S. Hill, LLC, and Lake Hills Golf, LLC (“Defendants”). We reverse and remand.
ISSUES
¶ 2 We review the following issues:
1. Did the District Court err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the issue of whether the wall constituted a spite fence?
2. Did the District Court err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the issue of whether the wall constituted a nuisance?
3. Did construction of the wall violate the Subdivision Restrictions?
4. Did the District Court err by awarding attorney fees to the
Defendants?
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
¶ 3 Annette and Aaron Efta, Paul Corcoran, and the Appellants (collectively “the
Plaintiffs”) own Lots 4, 5A, 6A, 7, 8, 9, and 10 of the 17th Filing for Lake Hills Subdivision. Lake Hills Golf, LLC owns Lot 5 in Tract B1 (hereinafter “Golf Course Property”), which is also in the Lake Hills Subdivision and is adjacent to the Plaintiffs' properties. The present case concerns a wall1 that the Defendants constructed near the border shared by the Golf Course Property and the Plaintiffs' properties.
¶ 4 In 1958, the owners of the Lake Hills Subdivision recorded a document entitled “Declaration of Restrictions” (hereinafter “Restrictions”) with Yellowstone County. The document set forth a number of restrictive covenants, limiting the use and development of the properties in the Lake Hills Subdivision. Relevant to this case, it stated that:
1. None of the lots or tracts in any of the zones hereinafter described shall be used except for a use or purpose herein specifically permitted, and no structure shall hereafter be erected on any lot or tract nor any structure maintained on any lot or tract except the structure herein specifically permitted.
...
3. ... No building hereafter to be erected on any lot or tract shall be commenced until written authority for the construction of such building has been secured from the Architectural Control Committee hereafter provided for.
...
6. No fence or wall shall be erected or maintained on any lot, nor any hedge planted or maintained on any lot until written authority therefor has been secured from the Architectural Control Committee which shall have authority to prescribe the location, height, design and materials used.
...
16. If used as a public or private golf course, country club, or park,
any structure incidental to such use, including but not limited to clubhouse, swimming pool, tennis courts and other recreational facilities, storage shops, and repair and maintenance facilities and shops, may be maintained and erected on any of the said tracts.
The Restrictions also stated that they were to run with the land and be binding against the present and all subsequent owners of tracts and lots in the Lake Hills Subdivision. The document gave any owner of any lot or tract the ability to enforce the Restrictions. Several amendments have been made to the Restrictions, but no amendment that has been made part of the record on appeal has affected the language quoted above in any way relevant to this Opinion.
¶ 5 At times following recordation of the Restrictions, the Plaintiffs and Lake Hills Golf, LLC purchased their Lake Hills Subdivision properties. Hill, acting on behalf of Ronald S. Hill, LLC (which has since changed its name to Lake Hills Golf, LLC), obtained the Golf Course Property via a warranty deed dated November 25, 2009. The deed specifically conveyed the Golf Course Property subject to, among other things, the Restrictions and its amendments.
¶ 6 On March 7, 2011, Hill applied for a zoning change to a number of the other lots he owned in the Lake Hills Subdivision. The Plaintiffs opposed the zoning change, and they claim that this opposition soured their relationships with Hill. Hill ultimately withdrew his application.
¶ 7 On October 16, 2012, Hill applied for a building permit from the City of Billings. He sought permission to build the structure that is now the wall at issue here. The permit was granted and Hill subsequently contracted with Specialized Construction, Inc. to build the wall. The wall, constructed at a cost of $40,000, is made of concrete and rebar. It extends to a height of approximately 9 feet above the ground. Set approximately 10 feet from the border between the
Golf Course Property and the Plaintiffs' lots, the wall runs approximately parallel to and for the length of that border. At 40–foot intervals along its approximately 800–foot length, the wall jogs 2 feet in a direction perpendicular to its length.
¶ 8 Following completion of the wall, the Plaintiffs sued the Defendants, claiming, in relevant part, that the wall was constructed in violation of the Restrictions, that the wall constituted a nuisance, and that the wall constituted a spite fence. Following discovery, the Defendants moved for summary judgment on each of these issues. Plaintiffs opposed this motion and asked for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether the wall violated the Restrictions. Resolving these competing motions, the District Court granted
summary judgment on all of the issues in favor of the Defendants. It also awarded the Defendants attorney fees. The Appellants appeal.
STANDARDS OF REVIEW
¶ 9 We review a district court's summary judgment ruling de novo, applying the same rule, M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3), that a district court does when making a summary judgment ruling. Beaverhead Cnty. v. Mont. Ass'n of Cntys. Joint Powers Ins. Auth., 2014 MT 267, ¶ 11, 376 Mont. 413, 335 P.3d 721. 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).
¶ 10 Whether there is legal authority for an award of attorney fees is a conclusion of law. Lewis & Clark Cnty. v. Hampton, 2014 MT 207, ¶ 23, 376 Mont. 137, 333 P.3d 205. A district court's interpretation of a restrictive covenant is also a conclusion of law. Creveling v. Ingold, 2006 MT 57, ¶ 5, 331 Mont. 322, 132 P.3d 531. We review a district court's conclusions of law for correctness. Lewis & Clark Cnty., ¶ 23; Creveling, ¶ 5.
DISCUSSION
¶ 11 1. Did the District Court err by granting summary judgment in favor of the Defendants on the issue of whether the wall constituted a spite fence?
¶ 12 The District Court granted summary judgment on the claim that the wall was a spite fence. It determined that recovery on a spite fence claim is only allowed where the defendant receives no benefit from the wall or fence. Deciding that there was no genuine issue that the wall in this case prevented trash and trespassers from entering the golf course's 10th fairway and deciding...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rubin v. Hughes
...recognized, "the Montana statute does not otherwise limit this broad definition of what may or may not constitute a nuisance." Bennett v. Hill , 2015 MT 30, ¶ 20, 378 Mont. 141, 342 P.3d 691. Thus, a nuisance action may be based upon conduct of a defendant that is either intentional, neglig......
-
St. John v. City of Lewistown
...is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M. R. Civ. P. Rule 56(c) ; Bennett v. Hill , 2015 MT 30, ¶ 9, 378 Mont. 141, 342 P.3d 691. ¶9 Section 7-2-4742, MCA, provides for court review of whether statutory annexation procedural re......
-
Victory Ins. Co. v. Mont. State Fund, DA 14–0152.
...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) ; Bennett v. Hill, 2015 MT 30, ¶ 9, 378 Mont. 141, 342 P.3d 691 (citations omitted). ¶ 11 We review a district court's ruling on a motion to dismiss under the stan......
-
Muir v. Bilderback
...a district court's ruling on summary judgment de novo, applying the same criteria under M.R. Civ. P. 56 as the district court. Bennett v. Hill, 2015 MT 30, ¶ 9, 378 Mont. 141, 342 P.3d 691.DISCUSSION¶ 10 Issue 1: Whether the District Court in its order of December 3, 2013, properly denied B......