Bugli v. Ravalli Cnty.
2018 MT 177
| Mont. | 2018Background
- Hughes Creek Road, a Ravalli County road established in 1900, has a gate placed in the 1970s about nine miles from West Fork Road blocking public access beyond the gate.
- In 1982 prior owners petitioned the BOCC to abandon the road beyond the gate; BOCC denied the petition, ordered gate removal, and found the road to be 11.8 miles long.
- County sued to remove the gate in 1984; the temporary restraining order was orally denied, the case became inactive, and a 1993 stipulation/order to dismiss contains conflicting language (with/without prejudice) and no clear final judgment on the merits.
- In 2016 successors (Landowners) petitioned the BOCC to abandon the road at the same point; BOCC denied the petition, finding the road provided public access to public lands under § 7-14-2615(3), MCA, and ordered gate removal.
- Landowners filed a 2017 district court complaint asserting (1) claim preclusion, (2) declaratory judgment on where the road ends, (3) declaratory construction of § 7-14-2615(3), and (4) a takings claim; the district court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim.
- Montana Supreme Court affirmed: (1) claim preclusion fails because issues differ and no valid final judgment existed from the 1984 action; (2) district court lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief that would effectively abandon the road without a writ of review of the BOCC decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claim preclusion bars County from relitigating gate removal | Landowners: 1984 action and current suit involve same issue; prior stipulation dismissal is a final judgment on the merits, so County is precluded | County: the earlier proceedings and issues differ and no valid final judgment on the merits exists from the 1984 case | Court: Affirmed dismissal — claim preclusion not satisfied (issues differ; no valid final judgment) |
| Whether district court may grant declaratory judgment on legal end of Hughes Creek Road absent writ of review | Landowners: declaratory relief on road end is independent of BOCC abandonment decision and not subject to writ-of-review requirement | County: district court cannot order abandonment-by-implication; relief must proceed via BOCC petition process and, if denied, by writ of review | Court: Affirmed dismissal — district court lacks jurisdiction to grant relief that would effectively abandon the road without a writ of review of the BOCC decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Brilz v. Metro. Gen. Ins. Co., 366 Mont. 78 (2012) (defines elements and policy of claim preclusion)
- Stewart v. Liberty Northwest Ins. Corp., 370 Mont. 19 (2013) (issue identity is crucial for collateral estoppel/claim preclusion)
- Tisher v. Norwest Capital Mgmt. & Trust Co., 260 Mont. 143 (1993) (stipulation to dismiss with prejudice can operate as judgment on the merits for claim preclusion)
- Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs v. Dist. Court, 203 Mont. 44 (1983) (district court lacks jurisdiction to order abandonment of county road; writ of review is proper route)
- Lee v. Musselshell, 320 Mont. 294 (2004) (reaffirms that district court may not order forced abandonment of a county road without writ of review)
- Sayers v. Chouteau Cnty., 369 Mont. 98 (2013) (examples of litigating county-road existence/location through declaratory/quiet-title actions)