Bevill v. Sandberg
2016 MT 251N
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Bevill and Sandberg own adjacent Whitefish parcels; a 2003 boundary adjustment left Sandberg’s parcel inaccessible from Colorado Avenue.
- In Sept. 2003 Bevill’s predecessor granted a 50-foot private access and utility easement (the Easement) benefiting Sandberg’s predecessor; the same instrument included a written Agreement restricting certain uses of Bevill’s property.
- Agreement subpart (a) barred construction on a cross-hatched area shown on Exhibit A; subpart (b) required Bevill to obtain primary vehicular access from Colorado Avenue and to use the 50-foot Easement only for "occasional and limited vehicular access" to the portion east of the four lots.
- Bevill later subdivided, combined parcels, and in 2013 granted the City a public access and utility easement that opened the access road across the Easement to the public.
- Bevill sued for declaratory judgment in 2014 seeking a ruling that subpart (b) is unenforceable as to Bevill’s use of the now-public road; the District Court granted summary judgment for Bevill.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed, holding subpart (b) is a restriction on use of the Easement (not a development restriction) and cannot be enforced against Bevill’s public right to travel the road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bevill) | Defendant's Argument (Sandberg) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of publicization of the access road on the Agreement’s restriction | Public opening of road gives all, including Bevill, unrestricted travel; subpart (b) cannot limit that | Subpart (b) still limits Bevill’s ability to develop because it dictates where/how access to the property may occur after traveling the road | Court: Public easement grants public (and Bevill) unrestricted right to travel; subpart (b) cannot be enforced to restrict travel on the public road |
| Scope of subpart (b): easement-use restriction vs. development restriction | Subpart (b) restricts use of the Easement only | Sandberg: Subpart (b) functionally restricts development and construction on Bevill’s property | Court: Text plainly restricts use of the Easement; does not impose general development restrictions |
| Whether court may rewrite Agreement to impose a development restriction | Bevill: Court should apply plain language; not insert omitted terms | Sandberg: Agreement should be read to limit development despite text | Court: Judicial role is to interpret, not add or omit terms; cannot insert unexpressed limitations |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Bevill: Undisputed facts and plain contract language allow judgment as a matter of law | Sandberg: Factual/legal disputes require denying summary judgment | Court: Facts undisputed; contract interpretation is legal—summary judgment proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Broadwater Dev., L.L.C. v. Nelson, 219 P.3d 492 (2009) (summary judgment standard and contract interpretation rules in Montana)
- Hurly v. Lake Cabin Dev., LLC, 276 P.3d 854 (2012) (interpretation of contracts as questions of law subject to de novo review)
- Creveling v. Ingold, 132 P.3d 531 (2006) (court may not insert omitted terms into an unambiguous instrument)