Public Land/Water Access Ass'n v. Jones
2013 MT 31
Mont.2013Background
- Jones purchased a parcel in Teton County where Boadle Road, Canal Road, and the Boadle Bridge intersect and connect via Sun River Slope Canal.
- Public use of the roads and bridge dated to the early 1900s for recreation, cattle movement, work travel, and access to Choteau.
- Jones’s predecessor erected a gate and posted the road closed to the public around 1999–2000; Jones continued to deny access after purchase.
- Public Lands Access Assn., Inc. (PLA) established a public prescriptive easement across Boadle Road and Boadle Bridge in PLA I (2004 MT 394).
- In 2002 a fire destroyed the bridge; Jones replaced it with a railcar bridge; public access continued to be at issue during PLA proceedings.
- In 2011 the Association filed a petition for supplemental declaratory relief and damages for Jones’s removal of the bridge and related access barriers; the District Court dismissed in 2012, leading to this appeal and the Supreme Court reversal and remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the district court err by dismissing claims after Jones removed the bridge? | Association argues PLA I protected public access regardless of ownership, so removal violated the easement. | Jones contends ownership and unilateral actions could remove or block access since the current bridge is his property. | Yes; the district court erred by misapplying PLA I and denying relief. |
| Does PLA I’s ruling extend to the particular bridge in place, regardless of ownership? | Association asserts the decision included the bridge and the land under it, not dependent on ownership of the bridge itself. | Jones argues the decision did not decide ownership-related rights in the specific bridge he installed. | Yes; the public had a right to use the bridge and land under it, and ownership does not defeat the easement. |
| Is supplemental declaratory relief and damages appropriate under § 27-8-313 MCA? | Association seeks relief ensuring access and funding reconstruction of the bridge, which is within the scope of PLA I. | Jones argues there is no final judgment determining liabilities or rights to the bridge. | Yes; the Association is entitled to consideration of its petition on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pub. Lands Access Assn., Inc. v. Jones (PLA I), 325 Mont. 236, 104 P.3d 496 (2004 MT 394) (public easement includes the bridge and land under it; use cannot be interfered with)
- Pub. Lands Access Assn., Inc. v. Jones (PLA II), 341 Mont. 111, 176 P.3d 1005 (2008 MT 12) (prescriptive easement established by similar facts as PLA I)
- Pub. Lands Access Assn., Inc. v. Jones (PLA III), 362 Mont. 545, 272 P.3d 125 (2011 MT 236N) (affirms public easement rights to access via Canal Road following prior decisions)
- Hafner v. Conoco, Inc., 293 Mont. 542, 977 P.2d 330 (1999 MT 68) (law-of-the-case must be adhered to throughout subsequent proceedings)