Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd. v. Board of County Com'rs

• Decision Date: 01 June 2000
• Docket Number: No. 99-544.,99-544.
• Citation: 2000 MT 147,2 P.3d 825,300 Mont. 66
• Parties: SWEET GRASS FARMS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, and Hunter's Hot Springs Canal Co., a Montana corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SWEET GRASS COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent, and J & W Enterprises, a Partnership, Intervenor Defendant and Respondent.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

2 P.3d 825

2000 MT 147

300 Mont. 66

SWEET GRASS FARMS, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellant, and Hunter's Hot Springs Canal Co., a Montana corporation, Intervenor Plaintiff and Appellant, v. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SWEET GRASS COUNTY, Defendant and Respondent, and J & W Enterprises, a Partnership, Intervenor Defendant and Respondent.

No. 99-544.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs December 16, 1999.

Decided June 1, 2000.

James H. Goetz and Brian M. Morris, Goetz, Gallik, Baldwin & Dolan, P.C., Bozeman, (Sweet Grass Farms, LTD.), Joseph T. Swindlehurst, Huppert & Swindlehurst, P.C., Livingston, (Hunter's Hot Springs Canal Co.), For Appellants.

Myra L. Shults, Missoula, (Board of County Commissioners of Sweet Grass County), Kenneth D. Peterson, Peterson & Schofield, Billings, (J & W Enterprises), For Respondents.

Michael S. Kakuk, Helena, (Montana Association of Realtors), For Amicus.

Justice JIM REGNIER delivered the opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd., appeals from the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction entered by the Sixth Judicial District Court, Sweet Grass County. We reverse and remand.

¶ 2 We restate the issues presented on appeal as follows:

¶ 3 1. Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Sweet Grass Farms' motion for preliminary injunction?

¶ 4 2. Whether Sweet Grass Farms is likely to prevail on the issues of subdivision review due to the Board's failure to consider several factors required by the Master Plan; the conflicts between the subdivision and the Master Plan; and the Board's failure to require an environmental assessment?

¶ 5 3. Whether the District Court erred by combining the standing requirement for an appeal under § 76-3-625, MCA, with the irreparable injury requirement under the preliminary injunction statute, § 27-19-201, MCA?

BACKGROUND

¶ 6 In January 1995 Norman K. and Ellen Lorraine Starr purchased a large ranch near Big Timber, Montana, which included the area of the subdivision at issue in this case. In August 1996 the Starrs submitted an application for a two-lot subdivision on the eastern portion of the property (referred to as the Trail West Minor Subdivision), which was approved. A Nevada real estate developer, Jerald R. Jackson, subsequently purchased the easternmost lot from the Starrs for his trust.

¶ 7 At about the same time as the subdivision application, Norman K. Starr had the westernmost portion of the property surveyed. In June 1996 the Starrs conveyed the westernmost portion of the property depicted in the certificate of survey (COS 124907) to Raymond C. and Eva J. Suiter. In February 1997 the Suiters quitclaimed the property to Sweet Grass Farms. Raymond C. Suiter is the president of Sweet Grass Farms, which is a family-owned farming operation.

¶ 8 Also in 1997, Jackson submitted a subdivision application for the lot he had purchased from the Starrs' Trail West Minor Subdivision. Jackson proposed subdividing the approximately 33.5-acre parcel into five lots. The Board of County Commissioners of Sweet Grass County (Board) rejected Jackson's subdivision application. As a result, Jackson filed suit in the Sixth Judicial District Court, Sweet Grass County.

¶ 9 Following these transactions, Norman K. Starr had the remainder of the property the Starrs purchased in January 1995 surveyed. In December 1998 J & W Enterprises (J & W), a California partnership, purchased the remainder of the property depicted in the certificate of survey (COS 125390).

¶ 10 In April 1999 Jerald R. Jackson, as managing general partner of J & W, submitted an application on behalf of J & W to subdivide the property depicted in COS 125390. The proposed subdivision (referred to as the J & W Minor Subdivision) included five, 22- to 30-acre lots along the north bank of the Yellowstone River, leaving a remaining parcel of approximately 163 acres. J & W's proposed subdivision is contiguous to the property owned by Sweet Grass Farms.

¶ 11 Following submission of J & W's subdivision application, the county planning board held several meetings, solicited input from various state and local entities regarding the potential impact of the subdivision, and received written public comment. In addition, as part of the preliminary plat review the planning staff issued a Staff Report on May 4, 1999, and the planning board issued its Recommended Findings of Fact that Weigh Review Criteria on May 5, 1999.

¶ 12 The Staff Report indicated that the subdivision was recommended for approval on the condition that it be brought into conformance with the subdivision regulations and the Sweet Grass County Growth Policy Plan (Master Plan) and that it minimize identified significant adverse impacts. The Staff Report specifically listed the areas where the subdivision, as proposed, did not comply with the Master Plan. In addition, the recommended findings of the planning board indicated the areas where the proposed subdivision did not comply with the subdivision regulations and the Master Plan.

¶ 13 At its June 2, 1999, meeting, the Board conditionally approved the J & W Minor Subdivision. The Board notified J & W of its approval and the corresponding conditions by letter dated June 4, 1999. On June 14, 1999, Sweet Grass Farms brought an action against the Board for declaratory relief and a writ of review seeking to nullify the Board's approval of the J & W Minor Subdivision. In addition, Sweet Grass Farms requested injunctive relief under Title 27, Chapter 19 of the Montana Code Annotated and included a petition of appeal pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA.

¶ 14 Subsequently, Hunter's Hot Springs Canal Co. (Hunter's Hot Springs) made a motion to intervene in the action as a plaintiff and J & W made a motion to intervene in the action as a defendant. Hunter's Hot Springs is a Montana nonprofit corporation which owns and operates a water use facility in Sweet Grass County, consisting of an irrigation canal.

¶ 15 At the same time, the Board filed a motion to dismiss the writ of review issued by the District Court and Sweet Grass Farms' entire action for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. On August 19, 1999, the District Court issued an order granting the Board's motion to dismiss the writ of review, denying the Board's motion to dismiss the entire action, striking the equitable remedies of declaratory judgment and writ of review from Sweet Grass Farms' prayer for relief, and allowing Hunter's Hot Springs and J & W to intervene as parties.

¶ 16 In late August 1999 Sweet Grass Farms received notice that J & W had submitted its final plat to the Board for approval. Sweet Grass Farms immediately sought and obtained a Temporary Restraining Order, which was issued September 1, 1999, enjoining the Board from taking any steps to issue final approval of the J & W Minor Subdivision pending a ruling on Sweet Grass Farms' motion for preliminary injunction.

¶ 17 On September 7, 1999, Sweet Grass Farms filed a motion for partial summary judgment regarding the Board's alleged failure to consider all the criteria set forth in the Master Plan in evaluating the J & W Minor Subdivision. Both the Board and J & W filed briefs in opposition to Sweet Grass Farms' motion for partial summary judgment.

¶ 18 The District Court conducted a hearing on September 15, 1999, regarding Sweet Grass Farms' motion for preliminary injunction. At the hearing, the parties spent a great deal of time arguing about the scope of the hearing, presented witness testimony, including experts, and introduced exhibits. During the hearing, Sweet Grass Farms attempted to introduce evidence regarding the successive subdivision applications allegedly made by J & W and entities or individuals affiliated with J & W or Jackson. The District Court limited the evidence to the process and adverse effect of the J & W Minor Subdivision and did not allow evidence regarding the cumulative effects of the other proposed subdivisions. Sweet Grass Farms made oral and written offers of proof regarding the evidence it had attempted to introduce regarding the other proposed subdivisions.

¶ 19 Following the preliminary injunction hearing, the District Court allowed the parties to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. On September 27, 1999, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Denying Preliminary Injunction. Sweet Grass Farms appeals from the District Court's denial of its motion for preliminary injunction.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶ 20 The standard of review for an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction is whether the district court abused its discretion. See Van Loan v. Van Loan (1995), 271 Mont. 176, 178-79, 895 P.2d 614, 615

(citation omitted). We will not interfere with the district court's ruling unless a manifest abuse of discretion has been shown. See Knudson v. McDunn (1995), 271 Mont. 61, 64, 894 P.2d 295, 297 (citation omitted).

¶ 21 In addition, we review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. See Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686

(citation omitted).

ISSUE 1

¶ 22 Whether the District Court abused its discretion in denying Sweet Grass Farms' motion for preliminary injunction?

¶ 23 Sweet Grass Farms contends that the District Court's denial of the preliminary injunction was based solely on one of the factors in § 27-19-201, MCA. As a result, Sweet Grass Farms argues that since the factors contained in § 27-19-201, MCA, are in the disjunctive, the District Court's failure to consider either § 27-19-201(1) or (3), MCA, constitutes a manifest abuse of discretion.

¶ 24 The Board states that it takes no position concerning whether or not an injunction should have been issued in this case. The Board further asserts that its participation in the September 15, 1999,...