Malpeli v. State
2012 MT 181
Mont.2012Background
- Malpeli owns residential property adjacent to Montana Highway 191 near Big Sky, Montana.
- MDT reconstructed Highway 191 during a highway safety improvement project, widening the road within the existing right-of-way.
- The project did not require Malpeli’s property, but the roadway changes reduced the space available for Malpeli to turn around vehicles.
- Malpeli alleged that MDT’s actions deprived her of reasonable access to her property and violated MDT’s approach standards.
- The district court denied MDT’s summary-judgment motion, ruling Malpeli had a cognizable property interest in reasonable ingress/egress, and Malpeli appealed.
- The Montana Supreme Court granted MDT’s appeal and held that MDT was entitled to summary judgment because Malpeli lacked a compensable property interest as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err in denying MDT summary judgment on taking Malpeli’s access rights? | Malpeli contends she had a compensable property interest in access. | MDT argues there is no compensable right to use the right-of-way for turning; no property interest existed. | Yes, summary judgment should have been granted for MDT. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kafka v. Mont. Dept. of Fish, Wildlife & Parks, 201 P.3d 8 (Mont. 2008) (defines property interests and requires legal analysis of ownership in takings)
- State by State Highway Comm’n v. Keneally, 384 P.2d 770 (Mont. 1963) (right of ingress/egress; not all changes in access are compensable)
- Seven Up Pete Venture v. State, 114 P.3d 1009 (Mont. 2005) (recognizes need to assess whether property interest exists before takings inquiry)
- Iowa State Highway Comm’n v. Smith, 82 N.W.2d 755 (Iowa 1957) (illustrates guardrails on access rights; context of access considerations)