Sieben Ranch Co. v. Adams
| Decision Date | 13 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | DA 20-0465 |
| Citation | 494 P.3d 307,404 Mont. 510 |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
| Parties | SIEBEN RANCH COMPANY, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Randall G. ADAMS, a/k/a/ Randy Adams, a/k/a/ Ray Adams; and Lee McDonald, Defendants and Appellants. |
For Appellants: Randall G. Adams, Self-Represented, Laughlin, Nevada, Lee McDonald, Self-Represented, Las Vegas, Nevada
For Appellee: Jesse C. Kodadek, Worden Thane P.C., Missoula, Montana
¶1 Randall Adams and Lee McDonald (Adams and McDonald) appeal an order from the First Judicial District Court, Lewis and Clark County, granting summary judgment to Sieben Ranch Company (Sieben Ranch) regarding a road dispute, specifically Lyons Creek Road, which traverses multiple sections of property in both Township 14 North, Ranges 4 West and 5 West, and Township 15 North, Range 5 West. We affirm.
¶2 Adams and McDonald present the following issue for review:
Did the District Court correctly grant summary judgment to Sieben Ranch, holding that Lyons Creek Road, traversing northwesterly beyond the gate installed by Sieben Ranch, was private.
¶3 Sieben Ranch owns property in northcentral Montana just south of Wolf Creek, Montana. Adjacent properties are owned by the State, Adams and McDonald, and the O'Connells. Lyons Creek Road begins at Interstate 15 in Section 28 of Township 14 North, Range 4 West, and travels northwest through Township 14 North, Range 5 West. Sieben Ranch installed a gate on Lyons Creek Road at the northwest corner of Section 19 of Township 14 North, Range 4 West and Section 13 of Township 14 North, Range 5 West. Beyond the gate, Lyons Creek Road continues northwesterly to Section 31 of Township 15 North, Range 5 West. The southeast portion of Lyons Creek Road, the portion below the Sieben Ranch gate, was designated a public highway by the county commissioners in 1923. In the 1950s, Sieben Ranch and other landowners in Township 14 North, Range 5 West petitioned the county commissioners to abandon Lyons Creek Road, which was denied. A diagram depicting Lyons Creek Road, shown as a solid black line, the landowners within Townships 14 and 15 North, Range 5 West, and the location of the Sieben Ranch gate, is provided below:
¶4 In September 1996, Sieben Ranch entered into the Sieben-Lyons Creek Conservation Easement (Conservation Easement) with the Montana Department of Fish, Wildlife, and Parks (FWP). The Conservation Easement encompasses 4,040 acres with the dual purposes to "preserve and protect in perpetuity the conservation values of the Land ..." and to limit use to "livestock grazing and directly related agricultural land management activities, timber harvesting, and limited mineral exploration and development." It further provided to FWP, "on behalf of the public, the right of reasonable access to the Land for recreational hunting as provided ..." during fall hunting season, from September 1 through the end of November.
¶5 Around the same time, the O'Connells entered into the O'Connell-Lyons Creek Conservation Easement (O'Connell Easement) with FWP reserving a similar-sized portion of land as the Conservation Easement. The O'Connells owned numerous sections of land that were accessible by Lyons Creek Road.
In the O'Connell Easement, they reserved the right to place or construct two single-family residences and related structures, one in Section 3 and one in Section 15 of Township 14 North, Range 5 West. The O'Connell Easement also reserved the right to construct or place all utilities and an access road for the residence. The O'Connell Easement provided that new roads included roads constructed by the landowner for landowner purposes, new access roads to neighboring land, and improvements to existing roads that substantially increase their utility. The O'Connell Easement also included a stipulation that the landowner must notify FWP prior to construction of a new road or the grant of a new access use to the land. The O'Connell Easement did not reference any access rights over Sieben Ranch property.
¶6 Sieben Ranch allowed the public to recreate via Lyons Creek Road until early 2000 when, it asserts, the public continually disregarded the conservation and management practices entwined with the property. Sieben Ranch, thus, closed the gate on Lyons Creek Road in 2003 to all public access except for that reserved in the Conservation Easement during hunting season. Sieben Ranch, however, granted permission to the O'Connells to use Lyons Creek Road north of the gate; permission to install their own lock on the gate; and requested the O'Connells provide it with a list of key holders. Sieben Ranch placed signs around the property and on the gate indicating Lyons Creek Road was a private road and was only accessible during hunting season. In May 2018, the O'Connells granted their successor, Brian O'Connell, and his successors and assigns, an easement for use of Lyons Creek Road:
[A] permanent access road easement for ingress and egress which easement shall run through the North East Corner of Section 15, Township 14 North, Range 5 West and the North East Corner of the South Half of Section 9, Township 14 North, Range 5 West M.P.M. Road easement shall follow the existing Lyons Creek Road. The easement is to provide access to grantee and his successors and assigns access to Section 3 and 5, Township 14 North, Range 5 West M.P.M. and Section 31, Township 15 North, Range 5 West M.P.M. Said easement is to run with the land.
In August 2018, the O'Connells sold three sections, covered by the O'Connell Easement, to Adams and McDonald—Section 3 and 5 in Township 14 North, Range 5 West, and Section 31 in Township 15 North, Range 5 West. In the agreement, the O'Connells indicated they could not guarantee legal access to the parcels due to the terms of the O'Connell Easement ("... Grantor will WARRANT and DEFEND the same from all lawful claims whatsoever, EXCEPT that Seller does not warrant legal access to the property which exception is described in the parties’ Agreement ..."). (Emphasis added.) Under the terms of the O'Connell Easement, Sections 5 and 31 were limited to logging and agricultural uses and one cabin site could be built in Section 3. Although required by the O'Connell Easement, Adams and McDonald neglected to notify FWP within thirty days of their purchase and also conducted activities inconsistent with the terms of the O'Connell Easement, including installing a gate on Sieben Ranch property and making improvements to Sieben Ranch property without permission from Sieben Ranch or notification to FWP as required by the Conservation Easement.1
¶7 In November 2019, Sieben Ranch filed for declaratory and injunctive relief with the District Court asserting Adams and McDonald have no legal access over Sieben Ranch property via Lyons Creek Road, or in any other manner. Sieben Ranch asserted it has historically granted access to Lyons Creek Road to Adams and McDonald and their predecessors as a neighborly accommodation, however, it never granted an easement to Adams and McDonald or their predecessors for the purposes of accessing Sieben Ranch property other than the stated months for hunting purposes. In May 2020, Sieben Ranch and Adams and McDonald filed cross motions for summary judgment. In August 2020, the District Court granted Sieben Ranch's motion for summary judgment concluding Adams and McDonald have no right of access over Sieben Ranch located in Township 14 North, Range 5 West. The District Court reasoned the only exception was that Adams and McDonald could hunt on portions of Sieben Ranch consistent with the Conservation Easement.
¶8 We review summary judgment rulings de novo, applying the standards set forth in M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Bird v. Cascade County , 2016 MT 345, ¶ 9, 386 Mont. 69, 386 P.3d 602 (citing Moe v. Butte-Silver Bow County , 2016 MT 103, ¶ 14, 383 Mont. 297, 371 P.3d 415 ). Summary judgment is appropriate when the moving party demonstrates both the absence of any genuine issues of material fact and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. M. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3) ; Bird , ¶ 9. Once the moving party has met its burden, the opposing party must present material and substantial evidence to raise a genuine issue of material fact. Bird , ¶ 9 (citing McConkey v. Flathead Elec. Coop. , 2005 MT 334, ¶ 19, 330 Mont. 48, 125 P.3d 1121 ). We will draw all reasonable inferences from the offered evidence in favor of the party opposing summary judgment; but conclusory statements, speculative assertions, and mere denials are insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Bird , ¶ 9. We review a district court's conclusions of law for correctness. Bird , ¶ 9.
¶9 Before addressing the public or private status of Lyons Creek Road, Adams and McDonald have asserted the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to determine the portion of Lyons Creek Road traversing northwesterly was a private road. We discern their argument to be that only county commissioners can designate roads or abandon county roads. Adams and McDonald rely on Board of Cty. Comm'rs v. District Court , 203 Mont. 44, 659 P.2d 266 (1983) to support their argument. However, while this Court in Board of Cty. Comm'rs held that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction to abandon a road, we did not hold that determining whether a county has designated a road public or private is beyond the jurisdiction of the court. See Board of Cty. Comm'rs , 203 Mont. at 49, 659 P.2d at 269.
Whether Lyons Creek Road is private or public
¶10 In Montana, "there are three ways by which a private road may become open and public, including adverse use or prescription, common law dedication by private owners, and statutory dedication by the county." Public Land/Water Access Ass'n v....
To continue reading
Request your trial