Summary
The Supreme Court of Montana reviewed an award of attorney fees in a declaratory judgment action concerning a claimed prescriptive easement over a roadway. The court held that equitable considerations did not support awarding fees under Montana's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act merely because the prevailing party defended its property rights, and it reversed the fee award.
Holdings
- The District Court erred in awarding attorney fees under the UDJA because the record lacked equitable considerations sufficient to support the award.
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court properly awarded attorney fees to the Ahlgrens under Montana's Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act in a declaratory judgment action involving a disputed easement.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (6)
- Mungas v. Great Falls Clinic, LLP, 2009 MT 426, 354 Mont. 50, 221 P.3d 1230(followed)
- Sampson v. Natl. Farmers Union Prop. & Cas. Co., 2006 MT 241, 333 Mont. 541, 144 P.3d 797(followed)
- Renville v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 2004 MT 366, 324 Mont. 509, 105 P.3d 280(followed)
- Martin v. SAIF Corp., 2007 MT 234, 339 Mont. 167, 167 P.3d 916(followed)
- United Natl. Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Ins. Co., 2009 MT 269, 352 Mont. 105, 214 P.3d 1260(followed)
- Trustees of Indiana University v. Buxbaum, 2003 MT 97, 315 Mont. 210, 69 P.3d 663(distinguished)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…