Motta v. Granite County Commissioners, 2013 MT 172

Granite County Commissioners adopted the Georgetown Lake Zoning District and Regulations by resolution in April 2011 after a process beginning in 2008 that included citizen-initiated drafting, planning board review, public hearings, and a 30-day protest period.
Richard Motta (pro se) filed suit seeking a declaratory judgment that the 2011 zoning resolution was void because it lacked a petition signed by 60% of affected property owners under § 76-2-101, MCA.
County Commissioners answered and counterclaimed, seeking a vexatious-litigant determination based on Motta’s litigation history and conduct in the case.
The District Court granted summary judgment for the County on the zoning claim, held a bench trial on the counterclaim, declared Motta a vexatious litigant, restricted his ability to file pro se claims against government entities in the Third Judicial District without prior court approval, and awarded the County $16,244.25 in costs and attorneys’ fees.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the zoning under Title 76, chapter 2, part 2 (county-initiated zoning), affirmed the vexatious-litigant determination and the fee award in principle, but reduced the fee judgment to exclude fees spent litigating the fee award itself.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Validity of Georgetown Lake zoning	Motta: zoning is invalid because no 60% property-owner petition under Part 1 was used	County: zoning was enacted under Part 2 (county-initiated) following growth policy and prescribed procedures	Court: Affirmed — County validly enacted zoning under §§ 76-2-201–228 (Part 2); Growth Policy did not bar Part 2 process
Vexatious-litigant determination	Motta: restriction denies constitutional right to access courts	County: Motta’s repeated, frivolous, harassing filings justify restrictions and prior notice and hearing were provided	Court: Affirmed — District Court had inherent authority; findings supported restriction; order narrowly tailored
Award of attorneys’ fees and costs	Motta: fees are not recoverable under American Rule; award not equitable and County could have used county attorney	County: equitable sanction justified because suit was meritless and frivolous; submitted proof of reasonable fees	Court: Mostly affirmed — equitable award appropriate as sanction for frivolous suit; County proved fees and costs were reasonable
Fees-for-fees (fees incurred defending the fee request)	Motta: challenged total amount; sought reduction	County: claimed additional fees defending the fee petition	Court: Reversed as to fees-for-fees — fees to prove fees ($2,001.50) not recoverable here; reduced judgment accordingly

State ex rel. Hillis v. Sullivan, 137 P. 392 (Mont. 1913) (district courts possess inherent power to sanction willful or reckless frivolous conduct)
Langemeier v. Kuehl, 40 P.3d 343 (Mont. 2001) (upholding restrictions on relitigation and supporting limited pre-filing restraints)
Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047 (9th Cir. 2007) (factors and standards for pre-filing orders against vexatious litigants)
Helena Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Lewis & Clark County Planning & Zoning Comm’n, 290 P.3d 691 (Mont. 2012) (distinguishing Part 1 and Part 2 zoning procedures)
Peterson v. Great Falls Sch. Dist. No. 1 & A, 773 P.2d 316 (Mont. 1989) (access to courts may be reasonably restricted for legitimate state interests)
Erker v. Kester, 988 P.2d 1221 (Mont. 1999) (equitable exception to American Rule allows attorney-fee awards to make prevailing party whole where opposing suit is frivolous)
Foy v. Anderson, 580 P.2d 114 (Mont. 1978) (attorney-fee awards under equity are determined case-by-case)
DeVoe v. City of Missoula, 274 P.3d 752 (Mont. 2012) (fees-for-fees typically not recoverable absent statutory entitlement)