Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP
| Decision Date | 16 August 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 21-0426 |
| Citation | 409 Mont. 478,515 P.3d 806 |
| Parties | FLYING T RANCH, LLC, a Montana limited liability company, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. CATLIN RANCH, LP, a Montana limited partnership, Defendant and Appellant, Meagher County by and through Its Commission, Scott Jackson, Lynn Jackson, Debra Williams, Lisa Anderson, Bert Williams and Connie Hix, Defendants and Appellees. Catlin Ranch, LP, a Montana limited partnership, Cross-Claimant, v. Debra Williams, Lisa Anderson, Bert Williams and Connie Hix, Cross-claim Defendants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Jim Lippert, Jim Lippert Attorney at Law, P.C., Big Timber, Montana, Vuko J. Voyich, Anderson & Voyich, P.L.L.C., Livingston, Montana
For Appellees: Brian K. Gallik, Gallik, Bremer & Molloy, P.C., Bozeman, Montana (for Flying T Ranch, LLC), Susan B. Swimley, Swimley Law Firm, Bozeman, Montana (for Meagher County), Matthew W. Williams, MW Law, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana (for Debra Williams, Bert Williams, Lisa Anderson, and Connie Hix), Hanna Warhank, Rachel A. Taylor, Church, Harris, Johnson & Williams, P.C., Great Falls, Montana (for Scott Jackson and Lynn Jackson)
¶1 Catlin Ranch, LP (Catlin), appeals from the preliminary injunction entered by the Fourteenth Judicial District Court, Meagher County, enjoining Catlin from inhibiting Flying T Ranch, LLC's (Flying T) use of a disputed road over Catlin's property during the pendency of proceedings to determine Flying T's access rights.
¶2 We affirm, and address the following issues raised by Catlin:
¶3 Flying T purchased Section 25 of Township 8 North, Range 7 East in Meagher County (Section 25), in April 2014, from Bert and Debra Williams, Lisa Anderson, and Connie Hix (collectively "Williams"). Flying T is a Montana limited liability company consisting of three members who primarily reside outside of Montana and use the property for recreation. Catlin is a Montana limited partnership engaged in the cattle-ranching business whose holdings include approximately 50,000 acres. Relevant to this appeal, Catlin owns Sections 11, 14, and 15 of the Township.
¶4 The disputed road starts on Catlin's property in Section 15 where it exits Highway 89. Access is controlled by gates installed by Catlin, and the road then proceeds northeast through Catlin's land in Sections 14 and 11 until it joins the old White Sulphur Springs to Livingston Road (WSS Road) in the southern portion of Section 11. This initial 1.1 mile stretch of the road linking Highway 89 to WSS Road is referred to as the "Moss Agate Spur." The Moss Agate Spur and the continuing section of WSS Road at issue in this case are referred to collectively as the Moss Agate Road (MAR).
?
Figure 1. This map was adapted from an exhibit provided by Flying T. Its only purpose is to illustrate the location of the disputed road and the relative location of the parties’ properties. MAR consists of the portion of road beginning at "GATE," continuing over the "MAR Spur," and ending at the "Y" split in the road in Section 2. The hyphen line running northeast of the split represents the Jackson and State Easements leading to Flying T's property in Section 25.
¶5 From its confluence with WSS Road, MAR travels north through Catlin's Section 11 and into Section 2, owned by Scott and Lynn Jackson (Jacksons). In the northern portion of Section 2, WSS Road turns northwest toward White Sulphur Springs. At that point, which is the terminus of MAR, a road splits off from WSS Road to the northeast, and continues across Section 35, also owned by Jacksons, and Section 36, owned by the State of Montana. In 2013, Jacksons granted Williams, Flying T's predecessor, a non-exclusive, perpetual easement over their property in Sections 2 and 35. This "Jackson Easement," extending from the terminus of MAR, connects with the easement across Section 36 granted to Williams by the State. Together, the Jackson and State Easements provide Flying T access across these Sections to its property in Section 25 from the point where the road splits from WSS Road in Section 2 (), and these easements are undisputed here. See Figure 1.
¶6 Flying T's managing partner Todd Timbrook (Timbrook) first used MAR to access Section 25 when viewing the property for potential purchase with real estate agents in Fall 2013. At the time of purchase, Timbrook understood access to Section 25 was "free and clear," beginning from Highway 89 in Section 15, proceeding on MAR, and then over the Jackson and State Easements. Shortly after purchasing the property in April 2014, Flying T began construction of a cabin on Section 25 for recreational use by its members. It spent approximately $500,000 constructing the structure and improving the property, using MAR to transport equipment, lumber, and other building materials to the construction site in Section 25. At its expense, Flying T improved MAR, primarily on the portion of the road crossing Catlin's property.
¶7 Catlin did not immediately take any action in response to Flying T's use or improvement of MAR, but in June 2014 locked the gate at the entry in Section 15. Catlin called the sheriff to report cement trucks using MAR to access Flying T's property as trespassers. Flying T's title insurance company, First American Title Insurance Company (First American), provided Flying T and a sheriff's deputy with a document purporting to demonstrate MAR was a county road abandoned in 1969, but that access rights for area property owners, including the owner of Section 25, had been reserved. The deputy showed the document to Catlin, and in response, Catlin removed the lock. Flying T's cabin was substantially completed in September 2014, and the membership used the property for archery hunting that fall, accessing it by MAR. For three years thereafter, Flying T's members exercised uninhibited access to Section 25 via MAR.
¶8 In September 2017, members of Flying T arrived at the entrance to MAR on Section 15 and found the gate locked. Timbrook cut the chain and replaced it with a Flying T lock, and the members and their contractors accessed the property through the gate for several weeks thereafter, until Catlin replaced the lock over Flying T's protest. Catlin consulted the Meagher County attorney, who opined Flying T lacked legal access to MAR, and thus Catlin continued to block access. Flying T began utilizing an alternate, unimproved route to the property from the north, but suspended family visits to the property and scheduled improvements because of access difficulties, including an inability to bring necessary machinery and supplies to the property over the alternate route.
¶9 In October 2017, Flying T tendered a claim under its First American title policy for lack of access.2 First American assigned legal counsel to Flying T and began exploring solutions to secure access for Flying T, including purchase of an easement over MAR, bringing an action against Catlin, or making improvements to potential alternate routes. Road improvements were potentially costly, and in May 2019, Flying T learned that First American intended only to secure an easement over an alternate, unimproved access road. Flying T objected, and brought an action against First American seeking damages.
¶10 Also in May, Flying T filed a complaint against Catlin alleging Flying T had legal access to MAR under numerous theories, and requested preliminary injunctive relief, including a temporary restraining order, and permanent injunctive relief restraining Catlin from interfering with Flying T's access over the portion of MAR running through Catlin's land. Catlin moved to stay the proceedings pending resolution of Flying T's action against First American, arguing Flying T's claims against Catlin were duplicative of those against First American, and if Flying T was successful in its suit for damages against First American, "there would be no need for the suit against Catlin to continue, because [Flying T] will have been made ‘whole.’ " The District Court granted the stay request, which this Court reversed in April 2020, holding the District Court erred by effectively denying Flying T's motion for preliminary injunction without a hearing. Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP , 2020 MT 99, ¶ 18, 400 Mont. 1, 462 P.3d 218 ( Flying T I ).
¶11 Following remand, Jacksons advised Flying T they intended to cooperate with Catlin and block Flying T's access to MAR where it crosses Section 2 of their property. In its August 13, 2020 First Amended and Supplemental Complaint, Flying T added Williams, Jacksons, and Meagher County as defendants, and requested that Catlin and Jacksons be preliminarily enjoined from interfering with its access where MAR crossed their properties. Catlin filed cross-claims against Williams, alleging they misrepresented to Flying T during sales negotiations that it would have access to Section 25 over MAR.
¶12 The District Court held a four-day preliminary injunction hearing, and on August 2, 2021, issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order granting preliminary injunctive relief to Flying T (Order). The District Court concluded Flying T established prima facie cases for relief on three alternative theories: (1) MAR is an unabandoned county road; (2) MAR is an abandoned county road, but access rights are expressly reserved for area landowners, including Flying T; and (3) Flying T has an easement by estoppel over MAR. The Order enjoined Catlin and Jacksons "from inhibiting Flying T's access from U.S. Highway 89 via Moss Agate Spur Road and the Moss Agate/WSS/Road 19" during the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mont. Democratic Party v. Jacobsen
...testing of such evidence at a trial on the merits. See BAM Ventures, ¶ 7; Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP, 2022 MT 162, ¶ 39, 409 Mont. 478, P.3d Thus, while I would make no determination of the merits of the arguments advanced by the respective parties at this juncture, I would con......
-
Bardos v. Spoklie
...the preservation of the property or rights in status quo until trial. Flying T Ranch, LLC v. Catlin Ranch, LP, 2022 MT 162, ¶ 18, 409 Mont. 478, 515 P.3d 806. The District Court carefully considered the evidence and testimony presented by both parties and after our own review of the record,......