Lewis & Clark County v. Hampton
376 Mont. 137
Mont.2014Background
- Hampton owned a ~14.2-acre parcel in Lewis & Clark County that had a 1993 agricultural covenant limiting non‑agricultural use and permitting revocation only by mutual consent of the owner and County.
- Hampton requested county consent to revoke the covenant multiple times; in 2004 the County Commission voted to approve revocation "subject to 13 conditions," and the County sent Hampton a letter stating revocation was approved but approval for any development would be granted only after the Planning Department determined conditions were met.
- Hampton built a residence and obtained various permits and approvals (septic approval, address assignment, tax reclassification) without satisfying several of the 13 conditions; a later subdivision application flagged the outstanding conditions.
- The County sued in 2009 seeking enforcement (completion of conditions), removal of the dwelling or other relief; cross‑motions for summary judgment followed.
- The District Court granted partial summary judgment that the County had consented to revoke the covenant (subject to conditions), denied the County’s summary judgment on notice/noncompliance, and a jury later found Hampton had notice and failed to complete four conditions (5, 6, 7, 11).
- Post‑trial the District Court ordered Hampton to make road upgrades, file an irrevocable deed restriction, required the County to issue certain permits, and apportioned road improvement costs; the Supreme Court affirmed most rulings but required Hampton to bear the entire cost to upgrade Lodgepole Road.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hampton) | Defendant's Argument (County) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the County consented to revoke the agricultural covenant | County voted to revoke the covenant; conditions were to be satisfied before development but revocation was effective between parties upon mutual consent | Revocation wasn’t effective until recorded per County resolution; without recordation the covenant remains in effect and County cannot enforce post‑revocation conditions | Court: County consented to revoke the covenant subject to conditions; summary judgment for Hampton affirmed (revocation effective between parties despite lack of recorded revocation) |
| Whether summary judgment should have been granted that Hampton had notice of and failed to complete conditions | Hampton disputed notice/noncompliance for some conditions | County argued no genuine dispute: Hampton had notice and failed to meet conditions prior to development | Moot on appeal: jury found Hampton had notice and failed to complete four conditions; County not aggrieved by denial of its SJ motion |
| Whether roads (Lodgepole/Sweetgrass) are public and whether Condition 6 requires public easements | Hampton argued access/easement situation and sought alternative (upgrade roads; prohibit further division) | County argued strict compliance required; public access necessary and County entitled to insist on easements | Court: District Court’s factual finding that portions of Lodgepole were public lacked substantial evidence as to some segments but affirmed alternative remedy — required upgrades and deed restriction to ensure emergency access; no reversible error in resolving Condition 6 |
| Whether Hampton must pay full cost vs. proportional share for Lodgepole Road improvements and other remedies (penalties/fees) | Hampton argued he cannot be required to pay disproportionate/punitive share; proportional allocation proper; no statutory basis for civil penalties or attorney fees | County argued Hampton’s development solely caused need for upgrades and he should bear full cost and litigation expenses/penalties | Court: Reversed district court on proportional share — remanded to require Hampton to pay entire cost to upgrade Lodgepole Road; court did not award attorney’s fees or civil penalties (no statutory/contractual authority; equitable fees inappropriate here) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Lewis & Clark Cnty., 305 Mont. 103, 23 P.3d 908 (Mont. 2001) (prior appeal holding the agricultural covenant was not void and addressing County consent issues)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (land‑use exactions must have an essential nexus to the development’s impacts)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (exactions must be roughly proportional to the development’s impact)
- Empire Office Machs., Inc. v. Aspen Trails Assocs. LLC, 374 Mont. 421, 322 P.3d 424 (Mont. 2014) (standard of review for summary judgment)
- Lewis & Clark Co. v. Schroeder, 374 Mont. 477, 323 P.3d 207 (Mont. 2014) (standard for reviewing district court findings)
- Broach v. Grayheal, 296 Mont. 138, 988 P.2d 761 (Mont. 1999) (narrow circumstances for equitable awards of attorney’s fees)
- Goodover v. Lindey's, 255 Mont. 430, 843 P.2d 765 (Mont. 1992) (limiting equitable fee awards where a party had a reasonable basis to litigate)