Waddell v. Studer

Summary

The Montana Supreme Court reviewed a dispute concerning restrictive covenants governing the placement of a proposed home and the effect on neighboring homeowners’ views. The Court held that the covenants required good-faith consideration of neighboring views and solar gains by both the builders and the homeowners’ association. It reversed summary judgment and attorney-fee awards in favor of the defendants and remanded for further proceedings, while concluding that challenges to the preliminary-relief orders had merged into the final judgment.

Holdings

1. Orders denying a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction were merged into the final judgment and did not require separate appellate review because the case had proceeded to an adjudication on the merits.
2. The covenant stating that building placement 'should take into consideration' neighboring dwellings, with allowance for views and solar gains, creates a mandatory obligation for the builder to make a genuine, good-faith consideration of those neighboring impacts. The homeowners’ association likewise must in good faith consider views and solar gains when approving building size, height, and location.
3. Summary judgment for the Studers and the homeowners’ association was improper because genuine factual questions remained concerning whether their consideration of the Waddells’ views and solar gains was sufficient and made in good faith.
4. The attorney-fee and cost awards to the Studers and the homeowners’ association had to be reversed because reversal of summary judgment eliminated their status as prevailing parties, and the covenants authorize fees only to the prevailing party.

Questions Presented

1. Whether challenges to orders denying preliminary relief were merged into the final judgment and therefore did not require separate review.
2. Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment to the Studers and the Summer Ridge Homeowners’ Association based on its interpretation of the restrictive covenants and its conclusion that the defendants had sufficiently considered the Waddells’ views.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by awarding attorney fees and costs to the Studers and the Summer Ridge Homeowners’ Association.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded