Mitchell v. Glacier County, 389 Mont. 122

Background

Glacier County taxpayers paid property taxes under protest after a 2013–2014 independent audit disclosed budget deficits in several county funds and material weaknesses in internal controls.
Taxpayers sued Glacier County and the State seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, receivership, withholding of state funds under the Single Audit Act, and permission to continue paying taxes under protest; they also sought class certification and private-attorney-general relief.
The District Court denied partial summary judgment, denied class certification, and dismissed for lack of standing, finding Taxpayers alleged only speculative, foreseeable injury.
The Single Audit Act and Local Government Budget Accounting Act implement Article VIII, § 12 ("strict accountability") and give the Department of Administration discretion to review audits, require corrective action plans, and withhold financial assistance; prosecution of officers is discretionary.
The audit showed deficits in specific funds but reported positive ‘‘Total Government Funds’’ balances and a positive total net position, and described corrective actions the County planned or had implemented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Do Taxpayers have standing to sue the State for failing to enforce the Single Audit Act / Article VIII, § 12?	State failed to ensure "strict accountability" and refused enforcement under Single Audit Act, causing foreseeable tax burdens; taxpayers may compel enforcement.	Article VIII, § 12 is non‑self‑executing; Single Audit Act and agency rules afford discretionary enforcement by Department and prosecutors, so plaintiffs cannot compel action.	No standing — constitutional clause non‑justiciable here; the Act and rules vest discretion in the Department/prosecutors and do not create a private right to compel enforcement.
Do Taxpayers have standing to sue Glacier County for alleged mismanagement that may lead to higher taxes?	Audit deficiencies make it foreseeable County will raise property taxes to cover deficits; that economic threat is sufficient injury.	Alleged future tax increases are speculative; audit shows Countywide net resources and corrective plans, not an imminent concrete injury.	No standing — threat of tax increase is speculative and not an "actual or imminent" concrete injury; audit did not show a present, particularized harm.
Do statutory remedies (Single Audit Act, Local Government Budget Accounting Act) or § 27‑1‑202 create a private right of action or standing?	Statutes implementing Article VIII, § 12 and general remedial statute confer remedy rights to persons harmed by unlawful acts.	Implementing statutes do not expressly create private rights to sue here; statutory language and rules give agency discretion; § 27‑1‑202 requires a detriment but does not create standing absent concrete injury.	No — statutes do not independently confer standing; plaintiffs must still show concrete injury.
Do doctrines like private attorney general or the Declaratory Judgments Act supply standing?	Private attorney general doctrine and Declaratory Judgments Act allow suits to vindicate public‑interest enforcement failures and obtain declarations.	Private attorney general doctrine permits fee recovery but is not an independent cause of action; declaratory relief requires a justiciable controversy and standing.	No — neither doctrine supplies independent standing where plaintiffs have not shown a concrete, threatened injury.

Key Cases Cited

Heffernan v. Missoula City Council, 360 Mont. 207, 255 P.3d 80 (2011) (defines Montana standing as requiring a past, present, or threatened concrete injury)
Schoof v. Nesbit, 373 Mont. 226, 316 P.3d 831 (2014) (standing depends on whether constitutional or statutory provision grants right to judicial relief and requires concrete injury)
Columbia Falls Elem. Sch. Dist. No. 6 v. State, 326 Mont. 304, 109 P.3d 257 (2005) (non‑self‑executing constitutional clauses addressed to the Legislature pose political questions; courts may enforce statutes that implement rights affecting individuals)
Helena Parents Comm’n v. Lewis & Clark County Comm’rs, 277 Mont. 367, 922 P.2d 1140 (1996) (taxpayers had standing where alleged government losses would lead to tax increases or reduced services)
Grossman v. Dep’t of Natural Resources, 209 Mont. 427, 682 P.2d 1319 (1984) (taxpayer standing to challenge constitutional validity of taxes or uses of tax monies under certain circumstances)
Doty v. Mont. Comm’r of Political Practices, 340 Mont. 276, 173 P.3d 700 (2007) (mandamus cannot compel discretionary governmental action; discretion defeats compulsion claims)