Bennett v. Hill, 2015 MT 30

Plaintiffs own multiple residential lots in Lake Hills Subdivision adjacent to Lot 5 (Golf Course Property), owned by Hill/Lake Hills Golf, LLC. A concrete/rebar structure ~9 ft high and ~800 ft long was built ~10 ft from the common boundary. Plaintiffs call it a "wall."
A 1958 Declaration of Restrictions (Restrictions) runs with the land and requires Architectural Control Committee (ACC) written approval before erecting any fence, wall, or hedge (Paragraph 6); Paragraph 16 permits structures incidental to use as a golf course. The deed conveying the golf-course lot expressly subjects it to the Restrictions.
Plaintiffs sued claiming the wall is a spite fence, a nuisance, and violates the Restrictions. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims and for attorney fees; the District Court granted summary judgment for Defendants and awarded fees.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court reviews de novo and considers whether genuine issues of material fact exist on spite fence, nuisance, covenant waiver, Paragraph 16 exception, and entitlement to fees.
Key disputed factual points: whether the wall actually serves any beneficial purpose (preventing trash/trespass), whether Paragraph 6 was waived by course of conduct, and whether the wall is "incidental" to golf-course use under Paragraph 16.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the wall is a spite fence	Wall was built out of spite; there is a factual dispute whether it serves any legitimate purpose	Wall prevents trespass and trash on the course, so it serves a non-spite, beneficial purpose	Reversed: genuine factual dispute exists whether wall serves any beneficial purpose; summary judgment improper
Whether the wall is a nuisance	Aesthetic/offensive effects and obstruction can constitute nuisance despite any claimed utility	Beneficial purpose precludes nuisance finding	Reversed: beneficial use does not automatically preclude nuisance; factual dispute on purpose precludes summary judgment
Whether the wall violated the Subdivision Restrictions (Paragraph 6)	Paragraph 6 forbids fences/walls without ACC approval; no approval was obtained so construction violated the Restrictions	Paragraph 6 was waived by long course of conduct; or Paragraph 16 (incidental to golf-course use) authorizes the wall	Reversed: material factual disputes exist — no showing on summary judgment that Paragraph 6 was waived and genuine issue whether the wall is "incidental" under Paragraph 16
Whether attorney fees were properly awarded	Plaintiffs: fees improper because Defendants did not prevail on appeal and trial court erred	Defendants relied on covenants/statute to justify fees	Reversed: because summary judgment is reversed and Defendants did not finally prevail, fee award vacated; merits of fee entitlement not reached

Thornton v. Flathead County, 353 Mont. 252 (summary-judgment evidence must be viewed in favor of nonmovant)
Tarlton v. Kaufman, 348 Mont. 178 (aesthetic considerations can support nuisance; beneficial use does not categorically bar nuisance)
Stamm v. Kehrer, 222 Mont. 167 (structure/fence can be found a nuisance despite utility)
McKay v. Wilderness Dev., LLC, 353 Mont. 471 (elements and proof required to establish waiver of covenant by conduct)
Harland v. Anderson Ranch Co., 321 Mont. 338 (appellate reversal removes basis for district-court award of fees)