Yockey v. Kearns Properties, LLC
| Decision Date | 15 February 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 03-776.,03-776. |
| Citation | 106 P.3d 1185,326 Mont. 28,2005 MT 27 |
| Parties | LeLand K. YOCKEY, Judith K. Yockey, Thomas E. Schmit, Marie S. Antonioli, Howard Greenwood, Joan Greenwood, Christine Carpenter, Donna Steffensen, Patricia A. Avants, Becky Wedrick, Nancy Frank, Christian Frank, and Charlotte Cook, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. KEARNS PROPERTIES, LLC, Zkerns Properties, LLC, Kent C. Kearns, Zoni Z. Kerns, and Ravalli County, Defendants and Respondents. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Zane Sullivan and Darrel Moss, Sullivan Tabaracci & Rhoades, Missoula, Montana.
For Respondents: Martin S. King, Worden & Thane, Missoula, Montana (Respondents Kerns); William T. Wagner, Garlington Lohn & Robinson, Missoula, Montana (Respondents Ravalli County).
¶ 1 The above-named Plaintiffs and Appellants (hereinafter "Yockeys") appeal the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction and the dissolution of their temporary restraining order ("TRO") against Kearns Properties, LLC, Zkearns Properties, LLC, Kent C. Kearns, and Joni Z. Kearns (hereinafter "Kearns"), and Ravalli County. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand.
¶ 2 Yockeys state four issues on appeal, which we restate as follows: Did the District Court err when it concluded that Yockeys are not entitled to a preliminary injunction?
¶ 3 Yockeys are homeowners that own and reside on property located in the Antigone Acres subdivision, located east of Hamilton. Kearns own a 53.07 acre piece of property, located to the west and south of Antigone Acres, which they are attempting to subdivide. Antigone Acres and Kearns' property are located within Ravalli County.
¶ 4 Antigone Acres was platted as a subdivision in June 1974. On the plat, a certificate of designation states, "the lands included in all drives, courts, lanes, and parks shown on said plat are hereby granted and donated to the use of the public forever." Inside Antigone Acres, the road known as Thebian Lane was platted to run north-south just within the western boundary of the subdivision. A one-foot "reserve strip" was created between Thebian Lane and the western boundary of Antigone Acres. Ownership of that one-foot strip was retained by Jack Blahnik, one of Antigone Acres' developers.
¶ 5 At the time Antigone Acres was platted, the adjacent property now owned by Kearns was owned by Harold Maus. Blahnik had a personal animosity toward Maus, and because of this, he created and retained the one-foot strip between Thebian Lane and Maus' property specifically to deny Maus access to his property from Thebian Lane.
¶ 6 After Kearns purchased Maus' property, they called Blahnik and asked if he would sell them the one-foot "reserve strip" between Thebian Lane and Kearns' property. Blahnik agreed, and Kearns purchased the strip in September 2002. At the time Kearns purchased the strip, Daniel H. Koszczweski, a property owner within Antigone Acres and president of the Antigone Acres Homeowners Association, had also been negotiating with Blahnik to purchase the strip either individually or on behalf of the homeowners' association.
¶ 7 On February 7, 2003, Kearns submitted a subdivision application to Ravalli County. After submitting the application, they learned that residents of Antigone Acres objected to their accessing the proposed subdivision via Thebian Lane and the one-foot "reserve strip." The application was subsequently denied. On April 30, 2003, Kearns submitted a Subdivision Exemption Application to Ravalli County, which proposed a boundary realignment. This application was approved by Ravalli County on May 22, 2003.
¶ 8 On June 17, 2003, Yockeys filed a Complaint in the Twenty-First Judicial District Court, Ravalli County, alleging that Kearns' proposed use of the one-foot "reserve strip" violated the restrictive covenants of Antigone Acres; that Kearns' use of Thebian Lane to access their property to the west of Antigone Acres exceeded the easement for public use of Thebian Lane; that Kearns' proposed boundary relocation was illegal; and that defendant Ravalli County violated various statutes by failing to comply with public participation rules and regulations when it approved the Subdivision Exemption Application submitted by Kearns.
¶ 9 On July 14, 2003, Yockeys filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Application for Preliminary Injunction, alleging that if Kearns were not immediately enjoined from proceeding with their proposed boundary realignment, Yockeys would suffer irreparable injury and any judgment ultimately entered in response to their Complaint would be ineffectual. Yockeys further requested that Kearns be enjoined from using Thebian Lane to access their property outside Antigone Acres. The District Court issued a TRO on July 16, 2003, which temporarily enjoined Kearns from pursuing the boundary realignment and prohibited them from using Thebian Lane to transport any vehicles or heavy equipment exceeding 8000 pounds single axle in gross vehicle weight, pending a show cause hearing.
¶ 10 At the show cause hearing on August 13, 2003, Kearns informed the District Court that they had withdrawn their subdivision exemption application, thus rendering the boundary realignment issues moot. The District Court heard testimony regarding the purpose of the one-foot "reserve strip" and the scope of the public easement across Thebian Lane.
¶ 11 On October 8, 2003, the District Court issued its Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order, in which it concluded that Yockeys had failed to meet their burden under § 27-19-201, MCA, and denied their motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the TRO. In addition, the court addressed and resolved against Yockeys many of the factual and legal issues raised by them in their Complaint. From this ruling, Yockeys timely appeal.
¶ 12 The grant or denial of a preliminary injunction is so largely within the discretion of the district court that we will not disturb its decision, barring a manifest abuse of discretion. Shammel v. Canyon Resources Corp., 2003 MT 372, ¶ 11, 319 Mont. 132, ¶ 11, 82 P.3d 912, ¶ 11 (citations omitted). A manifest abuse of discretion is one that is obvious, evident, or unmistakable. Shammel, ¶ 12 (citing Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.). In addition, we review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether its interpretation is correct. Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd. v. Board of County Commissioners, 2000 MT 147, ¶ 21, 300 Mont. 66, ¶ 21, 2 P.3d 825, ¶ 21 (citation omitted).
¶ 13 Did the District Court err when it concluded that Yockeys are not entitled to a preliminary injunction?
¶ 14 Yockeys argue that the District Court erred by resolving ultimate issues of fact and law that should have been reserved for trial. They maintain that the court should have limited its findings and conclusions to the narrow issue of whether Yockeys were entitled to a preliminary injunction. They claim that no discovery had been conducted before the court entered its sweeping order, and that they never had the opportunity to fully address the factual and legal issues involved in the case. They further argue that the District Court erred when it failed to grant them a preliminary injunction because, pursuant to § 27-19-201(1), MCA, they demonstrated they had a high probability of eventually prevailing on the merits of their case.
¶ 15 Kearns respond that the District Court properly denied Yockeys' motion for a preliminary injunction because Yockeys did not demonstrate that they had a high probability of prevailing on the merits of their case. Kearns deny that the District Court reached the merits of the case.
¶ 16 Respondent Ravalli County filed a Position Statement in this appeal. Ravalli County stated that its position is that Thebian Lane is a public road, but not necessarily a county road. Ravalli County believes Thebian Lane is a public road because that is what is stated on the June 14, 1974, plat, and because Yockeys bought property in Antigone Acres subject to the plat's language. However, Ravalli County has not adopted a formal resolution accepting Thebian Lane as a county road.
¶ 17 The District Court made findings of certain undisputed facts — for example, that Antigone Acres was platted as a subdivision in June 1974,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Driscoll v. Stapleton
...omitted, citing Porter v. K & S P'ship , 192 Mont. 175, 183, 627 P.2d 836, 840 (1981) ); see also BAM Ventures , ¶ 16 ; Yockey v. Kearns Properties, LLC , 2005 MT 27, ¶ 18, 326 Mont. 28, 106 P.3d 1185. The "status quo" is the "last actual, peaceable, non[-]contested condition which preceded......
-
Planned Parenthood of Mont. v. State
..."on demand." See, e.g. , Benefis Healthcare v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP , 2006 MT 254, ¶ 1, 334 Mont. 86, 146 P.3d 714 ; Yockey v. Kearns Props., LLC , 2005 MT 27, ¶ 21, 326 Mont. 28, 106 P.3d 1185 ; Valley Christian Sch. v. Mont. High Sch. Ass'n , 2004 MT 41, ¶ 1, 320 Mont. 81, 86 P.3d 554 ......
-
Planned Parenthood of Mont. v. State
... ... Great Falls Clinic, LLP , 2006 ... MT 254, ¶ 1, 334 Mont. 86, 146 P.3d 714; Yockey v ... Kearns Props., LLC , 2005 MT 27, ¶ 21, 326 Mont. 28, ... 106 P.3d 1185; Valley Christian ... ...
-
Meine v. Hren Ranches, Inc.
...Dist. , 103 Cal.App. 321, 284 P. 514, 515-16 (1930) ); Jackson v. Bunnell , 113 N.Y. 216, 21 N.E. 79, 80 (1889). See also Yockey v. Kearns Properties, LLC , 2005 MT 27, ¶ 18, 326 Mont. 28, 106 P.3d 1185 ("limited function of a preliminary injunction is to preserve the status quo and to mini......