MacK v. Anderson
2016 MT 204
| Mont. | 2016Background
- Chriss and Carolyn Mack own 160 acres adjacent to several Anderson parcels; the Macks claim water rights in South Burnt Fork Creek with a historical diversion called Headgate No. 103 supplying the "Mack Ditch."
- The Macks historically maintained the ditch through Anderson property (2002–2012); in 2014 they discovered a dam/diversion to a pond on Anderson land and attempted maintenance.
- The Andersons resisted, obstructed work, and placed gravel in the ditch; the Macks sued under § 70-17-112, MCA and obtained a stipulated TRO preserving Macks’ access.
- The parties disputed the point of diversion (POD) location: the Macks relied on a 1978 Decree map placing Headgate 103 in NESWSW Sec. 4, T8N R19W; Statements of Claim filed with the Water Court showed a different quarter-section, creating confusion.
- The District Court held multi-day evidentiary hearings, found the 1978 Decree supported the Macks’ POD location, granted a preliminary injunction preserving the status quo (access to install/repair the headgate and use the historic diversion route), and reserved final adjudication and attorney-fee issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mack) | Defendant's Argument (Anderson) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the District Court exceed jurisdiction by ruling on merits when issuing a preliminary injunction? | Macks: court needed to determine likely success to preserve status quo; did not decide final merits. | Andersons: court improperly adjudicated merits beyond preliminary relief. | Court: No abuse of discretion; court made proper prima facie findings, preserved status quo, and expressly reserved final merits. |
| Did the District Court improperly establish or change the POD for Headgate 103? | Macks: court merely interpreted the 1978 Decree map to identify the historically used POD; did not change water rights. | Andersons: court intruded on Water Court’s exclusive jurisdiction to set PODs. | Court: No jurisdictional usurpation; district court interpreted the 1978 Decree’s POD for distribution purposes without altering water-rights determination reserved to Water Court. |
| Did the District Court usurp Andersons’ right to a jury trial on existence of the ditch/easement? | Macks: order preserved access/status quo and left contested rights for trial. | Andersons: status-quo findings amounted to final merits determination, depriving jury trial. | Court: Right to jury preserved; order maintained status quo and expressly directed further litigation/trial to resolve remaining contested issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shammel v. Canyon Res. Corp., 82 P.3d 912 (Mont. 2003) (district courts have broad discretion to maintain status quo by injunction)
- Cole v. St. James Healthcare, 199 P.3d 810 (Mont. 2008) (review standard for preliminary injunction abuse of discretion)
- Sweet Grass Farms, Ltd. v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2 P.3d 825 (Mont. 2000) (satisfaction of any statutory factor supports preliminary injunction)
- Sandrock v. DeTienne, 243 P.3d 1123 (Mont. 2010) (preliminary injunction requires prima facie showing and preserves last peaceable noncontested condition)
- City of Whitefish v. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs of Flathead Cnty., 199 P.3d 201 (Mont. 2008) (district court should not resolve ultimate merits when deciding preliminary injunction)
- Connolly v. Harrel, 57 P.2d 781 (Mont. 1936) (ditch/easement rights are distinct from water rights)
- Mildenberger v. Galbraith, 815 P.2d 130 (Mont. 1991) (Water Court has exclusive jurisdiction over water-right adjudication)
- Baker Ditch Co. v. District Court, 824 P.2d 260 (Mont. 1992) (district courts may supervise distribution of adjudicated water via ditches)