Mm & I, LLC v. Cty. Com'rs of Gallatin Cty., 2010 MT 274

MM & I applied in 2002 for preliminary plat approval of the Riverfront Park Subdivision east of Belgrade, initially proposing 143 lots and one condominium lot on 1.6 acres.
After neighbor opposition, MM & I revised the plan to 135 single-family lots and one lot for up to 16 condos, with a community well and septic system, which the Belgrade City-County Planning Board recommended for conditional preliminary plat.
The Gallatin County Commission denied the subdivision in June 2003 citing unmitigated impacts to statutory criteria such as health, safety, and agriculture.
MM & I sued the Commission under MSPA § 76-3-625 in September 2003; service of process occurred in 2006 despite timely filing, prompting review about prompt service.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the Commission in December 2009, finding the denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or unlawful, and MM & I appealed.
On appeal, the Montana Supreme Court addressed (1) whether post-hearing deposition testimony could be considered, (2) whether the denial was arbitrary and capricious, and (3) whether § 76-3-608(5)(b) was violated.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the district court abused its discretion on post-hearing deposition	MM & I argues Kiely allows consideration of depositions to show record-based abuse.	The record should not be supplemented with after-the-fact opinions under Kiely; deposition evidence is improper.	District court did not err in excluding post-hearing deposition testimony.
Whether the Commission's denial was arbitrary and capricious	MM & I claims the Commission ignored record evidence and relied on personal beliefs.	Commission weighed credible evidence and explained its reasons, so denial was not arbitrary.	denial was not arbitrary or capricious.
Whether the Commission violated § 76-3-608(5)(b), MCA	MM & I contends mitigation was required and consultation with MM & I should have occurred.	The Commission did not require mitigation and thus no consultation was required; the two-part test is not satisfied.	No violation of § 76-3-608(5)(b).

Kiely Construction, L.L.C. v. City of Red Lodge, 312 Mont. 52 (2002 MT) (post-decision explanations not part of record not admissible)
Aspen Trails Ranch, LLC v. Simmons, 230 P.3d 808 (2010 MT 79) (district court may accept new evidence when applying arbitrary and capricious standard)
Rierson v. State, 614 P.2d 1020 (1980 MT) (prompt service is case-specific; delay may defeat review)
Christianson v. Gasvoda, 789 P.2d 1234 (1990 MT) (commissioners may rely on their own observations and credibility assessments)
Hansen v. Granite County, 232 P.3d 409 (2010 MT) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires substantial supporting evidence and explanation)
Richards v. County of Missoula, 354 Mont. 334 (2009 MT 453) (agency decisions weighed for credibility and relevance under arbitrary-and-capricious review)
Madison River R.V. Ltd. v. Town of Ennis, 994 P.2d 1098 (2000 MT 15) (arbitrary and capricious standard applied to MSPA decisions)