Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a grant of summary judgment in a quiet title action involving claimed implied restrictions, negative easements, and equitable servitudes affecting neighboring subdivision tracts. The Court held that the recorded plat, restrictions, and chains of title did not impose a prohibition on development, and that the appellant’s brochure, alleged oral assurances, declaration, and notice arguments did not establish an enforceable restriction or equitable estoppel. The judgment in favor of Janice Pennington was affirmed.
Holdings
- Summary judgment for Pennington was proper because the recorded plat, restrictions, deeds, and chains of title imposed no restriction preventing development of tracts 16 and 17, and Flaherty failed to produce admissible evidence establishing an implied restriction.
- Flaherty could not enforce an implied negative easement or equitable servitude because the relevant title documents contained no such restriction, and implied negative easements are evaluated with extreme caution.
- The brochure and declaration did not defeat summary judgment because the brochure's authenticity was sufficiently doubtful, and the alleged oral assurances and the declaration's recitation of those assurances were hearsay offered for their truth.
- Flaherty failed to establish equitable estoppel because he could not show conduct, acts, language, or silence by Nelson amounting to a representation or concealment of a material fact.
Questions Presented
- Whether the District Court properly granted summary judgment to Pennington in her quiet-title action.
- Whether Flaherty presented admissible evidence sufficient to establish an implied negative easement or equitable servitude restricting development of tracts 16 and 17.
- Whether Flaherty's declaration, brochure, and alleged oral assurances created an enforceable restriction or supported equitable estoppel despite the absence of a restriction in the relevant chains of title.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (11)
- Sayers v. Choteau Co., 2013 MT 45, ¶ 21, 369 Mont. 98, 297 P.3d 312(followed)
- N. Cheyenne Tribe v. Roman Catholic Church, 2013 MT 24, ¶ 40, 368 Mont. 330, 296 P.3d 450(followed)
- Goeres v. Lindey's, Inc., 190 Mont. 172, 177-78, 619 P.2d 1194, 1197-98 (1980)(followed)
- Prospect Dev. Co. v. Bershader, 515 S.E.2d 291 (Va. 1999)(distinguished)
- King v. Schultz, 141 Mont. 94, 98, 375 P.2d 108, 110 (1962)(followed)
- PPL Mont., LLC v. State, 2010 MT 64, ¶ 94, 355 Mont. 402, 229 P.3d 421(followed)
- Ternes v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2011 MT 156, ¶ 24, 361 Mont. 129, 257 P.3d 352(followed)
- Rigney v. Swingley, 112 Mont. 104, 109, 113 P.2d 344, 347 (1941)(distinguished)
- Loomis v. Luraski, 2001 MT 223, 306 Mont. 478, 36 P.3d 862(followed)
- Thisted v. Country Club Tower Corp., 146 Mont. 87, 405 P.2d 432 (1965)(distinguished)
Showing top 10 of 11.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…