Estate of Mandich v. French, 509 P.3d 6

In 1997 Mandich and Paradise Valley, Inc. executed a Water Line Easement and Shared Well Agreement granting a perpetual, non-exclusive easement, stating the parties would "share the water" and limiting water available on Paradise Valley’s property to "domestic purposes only for one, single family dwelling," and binding successors.
The Frenches purchased the adjoining property (subject to the 1997 Agreement) in 2003; in 2004 both parties signed a Water System Use Agreement addressing continued maintenance of the shared system but not expressly modifying the 1997 Agreement.
In August 2019 the Frenches worked on the shared well, briefly shut off Mandich’s water, and later installed a higher-horsepower pump; they also planned an RV park on their land, prompting dispute over allowable uses.
Mandich sued (Nov. 2019) for declaratory relief (interpretation of the 1997 Agreement and alternative breach claim) and injunctive relief to prevent interference with her water; summary judgment briefing followed.
The District Court (Mar. 2, 2021) granted summary judgment to Mandich on the contract-interpretation issue (reading the 1997 and 2004 agreements together and finding the 1997 limitation clear), issued a permanent injunction with limited repair access for the Frenches, and later denied the Frenches’ motion to amend their answer and their Rule 59 motion; Mandich’s dismissal of the remaining breach count was granted and the Frenches appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the 1997 Agreement limits Frenches’ use of the well to domestic purposes for one single-family dwelling	Mandich: 1997 Agreement plainly limits use; 2004 Agreement did not replace 1997 Agreement	Frenches: 1997 language limits Mandich’s use only; 2004 Agreement and Water Use Act control; ambiguity requires extrinsic evidence	Court: 1997 Agreement unambiguous; read with the 2004 Agreement it does not get replaced; summary judgment for Mandich affirmed
Whether the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by entering a permanent injunction	Mandich: injunction necessary to prevent irreparable harm and enforce clear contractual limitation	Frenches: injunction relied on disputed facts and misapplied law (Water Use Act)	Court: injunction was supported by the clear contractual ruling and factual record; no manifest abuse of discretion
Whether the court abused its discretion denying leave to amend the Frenches’ Answer after adverse summary judgment	Frenches: delay explained by pro se status and COVID; newly-hired counsel needed to assert counterclaims	Mandich: amendment would be prejudicial and would restart the case after summary judgment	Court: 14-month delay (and filing after adverse ruling) prejudiced Mandich; denial was within district court’s discretion

Elk Grove Dev. Co. v. Four Corners Cnty. Water & Sewer Dist., 469 P.3d 153 (Mont. 2020) (private covenants that alter water-rights regime are invalid; contrasted shared-contract limitations that do not alter state authority)
Davis v. Westphal, 405 P.3d 73 (Mont. 2017) (standard of review for summary judgment)
Mont. Bd. of Pharm. v. Kennedy, 243 P.3d 415 (Mont. 2010) (permanent injunction may be granted on summary judgment where lower court clearly outlines grounds)
Broadwater Dev., LLC v. Nelson, 219 P.3d 492 (Mont. 2009) (construction of writings granting interests in real property follows contract-interpretation rules)
Stanford v. Rosebud Cty., 839 P.2d 93 (Mont. 1992) (reluctance to allow leave to amend after judgment; denial appropriate after adverse dispositive ruling)
Eagle Ridge Ranch v. Park Cty., 938 P.2d 1342 (Mont. 1997) (prejudice analysis for amendments considers substantial effort and expense already incurred by the opposing party)