Houston Lakeshore Tract Owners Against Annexation Inc. v. City of Whitefish
2017 MT 62
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Property Owners own multiple lots (Houston Lakeshore Area) north of Whitefish, bounded by Whitefish Lake (west/south) and City territory (north/east); primary land access is via East Lakeshore Drive and Houston Drive.
- City previously annexed segments: portions of East Lakeshore Drive (1981 Resolution No. B-916) and Whitefish Lake to low-water mark (2005 Resolution No. 05-25).
- In 2014 the City designated the Houston Lakeshore Area a first-priority annexation area but had not yet adopted a notice or resolution of annexation for that area.
- Property Owners sued seeking a declaratory judgment that (1) the City may not combine multiple tracts/parcels under the "wholly surrounded" annexation statute (Title 7, ch.2, pt.45, MCA), and (2) the Houston Lakeshore Area is not "wholly surrounded."
- District Court granted the City’s cross‑motion for summary judgment; Property Owners appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Title 7, ch.2, pt.45 limits "wholly surrounded" annexation to a single tract/parcel | Statute should be read to allow annexation only of single tracts/parcels (relying on definitions from other sources) | Statute is triggered by geographic relationship; plural/collective annexation of multiple tracts is permitted and aligns with legislative purpose | City may annex multiple tracts/parcels under the wholly‑surrounded statute; statute is read in context and plural usage permits multi‑parcel annexation |
| Whether the Houston Lakeshore Area is "wholly surrounded" under Calvert (i.e., all sides within city territory and access requires crossing city territory) | Area is not wholly surrounded: City’s annexation of East Lakeshore Drive was improper and Whitefish Lake cannot be used to create contiguity/access | Even excluding the lake, area is surrounded on three land sides by city territory; access by land requires crossing annexed city tracts; lake border does not defeat "wholly surrounded" status | Area is "wholly surrounded": land borders are within City and access by land requires crossing City territory; prior road annexation validity not adjudicated and treated as City territory for this dispute |
Key Cases Cited
- Harrison v. Missoula, 146 Mont. 420, 407 P.2d 703 (1965) (legislative purpose for annexation statutes: orderly urban growth and extension of services)
- Brodie v. Missoula, 155 Mont. 185, 468 P.2d 778 (1970) (annexation procedures permit orderly, uniform extension of city boundaries/services)
- Calvert v. City of Great Falls, 154 Mont. 213, 462 P.2d 182 (1969) (defines "wholly surrounded": all lands on the side of the tract are within the city and access requires crossing city territory)
- Missoula Rural Fire Dist. v. City of Missoula, 283 Mont. 113, 938 P.2d 1328 (1997) (discusses access requirement; formulation of Calvert test)
- Missoula Rural Fire Dist. v. City of Missoula, 286 Mont. 387, 950 P.2d 758 (1997) (held that annexed streets may be used to establish that tracts are wholly surrounded)