Mandich v. French
| Decision Date | 10 May 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 21-0436 |
| Parties | The ESTATE OF Charlotte MANDICH, via Susan G. Mathews, its Personal Representative Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Mark and Kathleen FRENCH, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Graham J. Coppes, Emily F. Wilmott, Ferguson Law Office PLLC, Missoula, Montana
For Appellee: Jesse Kodadek, Elizabeth W. Erickson, Worden Thane P.C., Missoula, Montana
¶1 Mark and Kathleen French ("the Frenches") appeal an order entered August 3, 2021, in the Twentieth Judicial District Court, Sanders County, dismissing the final count of Charlotte Mandich's ("Mandich") Complaint. The District Court previously granted summary judgment in favor of Mandich's declaratory judgment claim and issued a permanent injunction against the Frenches. We affirm and restate the issues on appeal as follows:
¶2 The Frenches and Mandich own adjoining properties in Sanders County. In 1997, Mandich and her husband signed a Water Line Easement and Shared Well Agreement ("1997 Agreement") with Paradise Valley, Inc., the Frenches’ predecessor in interest. The 1997 Agreement granted the Mandiches "a perpetual, non-exclusive water line easement" and provided, pertinently, that the Mandiches "hold water rights to the well" and would "share the water from said well with [Paradise Valley and its successors] in that the water volume available for use on [Paradise Valley's] property shall be for domestic purposes only for one, single family dwelling." The 1997 Agreement further provided its terms would be binding on the parties and their successors.
¶3 The Frenches purchased their property from Paradise Valley in January of 2003. The Frenches’ deed provides their purchase was subject to several easements, including the 1997 Agreement.
¶4 In 2004, the Mandiches and Frenches signed a Water System Use Agreement ("2004 Agreement"). The 2004 Agreement provided "for the continued maintenance, operation and replacement of a Water System for use" by both parties. By its terms, the 2004 Agreement neither mentions nor modifies the 1997 Agreement.
¶5 In early August 2019, the Frenches informed Mandich they needed to work on the shared well. The Frenches additionally told Mandich their plan to put in an RV park on their land. Shortly thereafter, the Frenches notified Mandich that they were going to shut off her water and begin working on the well. Mandich told them not to act until she could assess the legal ramifications.
¶6 On August 10, 2019, Mandich's water supply was briefly shut off. Her hired pump servicer informed her she should not drink or use the water due to an increased risk of contamination. Mandich's water supply was shut off again on August 12, 2019, and remained disconnected for the final three weeks of August. Upon reconnection, Mandich discovered the Frenches had installed a new horsepower pump to the well.
¶7 Mandich filed a Complaint in November 2019 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Mandich sought a declaration that the Frenches had materially breached the 1997 Agreement or, alternatively, that the language of the 1997 Agreement strictly limited the Frenches’ right to use the well to domestic purposes for one single-family dwelling. Mandich additionally requested injunctive relief barring the Frenches from "modifying, tampering with, or in any way interfering with [Mandich's] use of the shared well, or [Mandich's] water line or electrical system connected to the well."
¶8 Mandich filed a motion for summary judgment in February 2020, before the Frenches filed any responsive pleading. Acting pro se, the Frenches filed their "Answer to [Mandich's] Complaint/Motion for Summary Judgment" on March 4, 2020. The Frenches argued the 1997 Agreement limited Mandich's, not the Frenches’, use of the well. The Frenches further argued that Mandich had materially breached the 1997 Agreement. The Frenches obtained counsel on March 25, 2020.
¶9 On October 23, 2020, the District Court held a hearing on Mandich's motion for summary judgment.1 The District Court issued its Order on March 2, 2021. The Order denied summary judgment on Mandich's breach of contract claim, concluding that whether the Frenches’ conduct constituted a material breach was a question of fact. The District Court granted summary judgment on Mandich's alternative argument concerning the 1997 Agreement's limitation of use language. The District Court noted that both parties agreed "this is a matter of contract interpretation" and concluded the 1997 and 2004 Agreements must be read together.2 The District Court found "no language in the 2004 Agreement that would have it replace the 1997 Agreement." The District Court additionally granted Mandich's request for a permanent injunction.
¶10 Following the District Court's Order, the Frenches filed two motions. First, on March 29, 2021, they filed a motion pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 59 to alter or amend the judgment ("Motion to Alter"). For the first time, the Frenches contended Montana's Water Use Act, §§ 85-1-101 et seq., MCA, controlled the case. The Frenches additionally argued that the District Court relied on disputed facts in issuing its permanent injunction and that the Order was internally inconsistent and required alteration.
¶11 Before the District Court ruled on their Motion to Alter, the Frenches filed a motion on April 27, 2021, pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 15, requesting leave to amend their answer ("Motion for Leave to Amend").
Citing recent actions by Mandich and her agents, the Frenches sought to assert seven counterclaims against Mandich, seeking a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages. The Frenches argued they had not pursued these claims previously due to their pro se status and belief the case would settle.
¶12 The District Court issued an Order of Clarification on May 27, 2021. The District Court affirmed its ruling in favor of Mandich but clarified that the issue was one of contract interpretation and that it was not being asked to adjudicate a water right. The District Court further clarified the scope of the permanent injunction, allowing the Frenches to "access and use the well with reasonable notice to Mandich, for purposes of making repairs and for improvements to the well." The District Court issued its order denying the Frenches’ Motion for Leave to Amend the same day. The District Court agreed with Mandich's arguments that the Frenches failed to show the justifications for the nearly 14-month delay between their original Answer and the Motion for Leave to Amend outweighed the prejudice to Mandich and noted the Frenches filed the motion following an adverse ruling on summary judgment.
¶13 After prevailing on summary judgment, Mandich moved to dismiss the remaining count of her complaint, concerning whether the Frenches materially breached the 1997 Agreement, on June 29, 2021. The Frenches opposed the motion, arguing that Mandich should have stipulated to their request to amend their Answer to pursue counterclaims against her and that Mandich's actions had prejudiced them and caused them to incur significant expenses. The Frenches additionally requested the District Court "promote justice" by requiring Mandich, 98 years old at the time, pay their attorney fees and costs.3
¶14 The District Court granted Mandich's motion to dismiss on August 3, 2021. The District Court noted Mandich's successful request for injunctive relief and "understandable" desire not to spend her final years litigating the matter. The Frenches appeal.
¶15 We review summary judgment rulings de novo for conformance to M. R. Civ. P. 56. Davis v. Westphal , 2017 MT 276, ¶ 9, 389 Mont. 251, 405 P.3d 73. Summary judgment is proper only when no genuine issue of material fact exists and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Whether a genuine issue of material fact exists or whether a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law are conclusions of law we review de novo for correctness. Davis , ¶ 9.
¶16 The grant or denial of injunctive relief remains within the broad discretion of the district court based on applicable findings of fact and conclusions of law. Weems v. State , 2019 MT 98, ¶ 7, 395 Mont. 350, 440 P.3d 4. We review the grant or denial of injunctive relief for a manifest abuse of discretion by the district court. Shammel v. Canyon Res. Corp. , 2003 MT 372, ¶ 12, 319 Mont. 132, 82 P.3d 912. A manifest abuse of discretion is an obvious, evident, or unmistakable abuse of discretion. Davis , ¶ 10. "While the denial of a temporary or permanent injunction is reviewed for manifest abuse of discretion, deference is not applied to the district court's conclusions of law, which are reviewed de novo to determine whether its interpretation of the law is correct." Krutzfeldt Ranch, LLC v. Pinnacle Bank , 2012 MT 15, ¶ 13, 363 Mont. 366, 272 P.3d 635 (internal quotations omitted).
¶17 We review the grant or denial of leave to amend for an abuse of discretion. Loomis v. Luraski , 2001 MT 223, ¶ 41, 306 Mont. 478, 36 P.3d 862.
¶18 1. Whether the District Court erred in granting summary judgment to Mandich on the 1997 Agreement's limitation of usage language.
¶19 The Frenches argue first that the Water Use Act, not contract law, should determine this case. They contend they raised this argument during the summary judgment hearing. This, however, is an overstatement. During the hearing, the Frenches argued that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial