Britton v. Brown, 2013 MT 30

Britton and Brown co-own 10.88 acres of Flathead Lake property as tenants in common since 1992; the property includes a rocky point, a neck, and a gravel beach with a cabin built in 1910.
Britton filed a partition action in 2007 seeking equitable partition or, if not possible, a forced sale and equal net proceeds.
Three partition referees were appointed; each party could appoint one referee; referees prepared a plan, inspected the property, and issued a preliminary report.
Referees issued a final partition report in 2011 dividing the property into two parcels valued at about $1.236M and $1.235M, noting the cabin could be relocated and advising a viewing of the property.
Brown objected with affidavits and exhibits challenging the referees’ valuation and conclusions; she requested an evidentiary hearing and the opportunity to depose the referees, which the district court did not grant; the court ultimately confirmed the referees’ report with a two-parcel division.
Brown appealed, contending due process was violated because an evidentiary hearing was required to test the referees’ report and her objections.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether due process required an evidentiary hearing after substantiated objections	Brown asserts she was entitled to an evidentiary hearing to test the referees’ report	Britton contends due process was satisfied by participation and statutory review options	Yes; due process requires an evidentiary hearing when objections are substantiated by evidence
Whether the referees’ report could be upheld without an evidentiary hearing	Brown’s objections create a legitimate dispute needing fact-testing	Record supports confirmation without full hearing if objections are unfounded	Not applicable since substantial objections were raised requiring an evidentiary hearing
Whether the district court erred by limiting deposition of referees	Brown sought to depose referees to test credibility	No explicit statutory prohibition on deposition; court has discretion	Remanded for evidentiary hearing; parties may call referees as witnesses

Kellogg v. Dearborn Info. Servs., LLC, 328 Mont. 83 (Mont. 2005) (partition review with broad judicial discretion; evidence required for support)
Tillett v. Lippert, 275 Mont. 1, 909 P.2d 1158 (Mont. 1996) (referees’ report subject to substantial evidence review)
Field v. Hudson, 176 P.73 (N.M. 1918) (due process requires opportunity to be heard appropriate to the case)
Wright v. Wright, 475 N.E.2d 556 (Ill. App. 3d 1985) (objector may examine referees; deposition permitted)
Prostak v. Prostak, 607 A.2d 1349 (N.J. Super. 1992) (evidentiary hearing necessary when objections test the report)