City of Helena v. Svee
2014 MT 311
| Mont. | 2014Background
- In 2009, Helena adopted a wildland-urban interface (WUI) district overlay and § 11-41-2 restricting roofing materials within the district.
- Svees’ property lies in the WUI district; they replaced wooden shingles on the south roof plane, limiting repairs due to financial constraints.
- City issued a stop-work notice on Aug 15, 2011 and filed criminal charges for repair without a permit, later adding civil claims.
- Svees petitioned for declaratory judgment; City moved for summary judgment; District Court found § 11-41-2 to be an impermissible building regulation.
- District Court dismissed constitutional claims; Svees sought attorney’s fees, which were denied; Svees cross-appealed.
- On remand, Court affirmed part of the judgment, reversed to award attorney fees, and remanded for fee amount, while upholding dismissal of constitutional claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 11-42-2 is an impermissible building code rather than a zoning ordinance | Svees: § 11-41-2 exceeds zoning authority and violates state building code | City: WUI is valid zoning; § 11-41-2 addresses building materials within zoning authority | District Court erred; § 11-41-2 is invalid as building regulation; remand on fee issues |
| Whether Svees are eligible for attorney fees under § 27-8-313, MCA | Svees should recover fees under UDJA and tangible-parameters test | City contends no fee entitlement; declaratory relief not necessary to change status quo | Svees entitled to attorney fees; remand for fee amount determination |
| Whether the Svees’ constitutional arguments were properly addressed | Svees argued constitutional challenges to ordinance validity | District Court should address constitutional issues | Constitutional claims were properly affirmed as dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia City v. Estate of Olsen, 201 P.3d 115 (2009 MT) (permits addressing building requirements do not validate zoning ordinances)
- United Nat'l Ins. Co. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 352 Mont. 105 (2009 MT) (equitable considerations for fee awards under UDJA framework)
- Buxbaum, Trustees of lnd. Univ. v., 315 Mont. 210 (2003 MT) (tangible parameters for declaring fees 'necessary or proper')
- Renville v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 324 Mont. 509 (2004 MT) (UDJA fees framework and 'necessary or proper' analysis)
- Martin v. SAIF Corp., 339 Mont. 167 (2007 MT) (clarified change-of-status quo principle for fee awards)
- Horace Mann Ins. Co. v. Hanke, 372 Mont. 350 (2013 MT) (rare exceptions to the American Rule for attorney fees)