Towe Farms v. Corbett
2017 MT 131N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Towe Farms, Inc. sold 40-acre parcels from Sun Dial Ranch; Custer County Clerk & Recorder Linda Corbett refused to record certain deeds because she concluded they required MSPA compliance.
- MSPA initially regulated divisions under 10 acres (1973), later 20 acres (1974–1993), and in 1993 expanded to cover parcels under 160 acres; current dispute centers on whether earlier events "grandfathered" the 40-acre sales.
- Towe relies on (1) unrecorded 1974 aerial photographs/survey by Compton showing 40-acre tracts, and (2) a recorded 1984 Bloch Agreement describing the ranch as 260 forty‑acre tracts and providing for incremental 40‑acre conveyances.
- District Court granted summary judgment for Corbett; Towe appealed arguing the photographs or the Bloch Agreement created a pre‑MSPA (or pre‑1993) subdivision or that Corbett is equitably estopped from refusing to record.
- Supreme Court reviewed de novo (no genuine disputes of material fact) and affirmed: unrecorded survey evidence has no effect under MSPA and the Bloch Agreement did not create segregated parcels; equitable estoppel fails where only legal misrepresentations occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unrecorded 1974 aerial photos/survey created a "grandfathered" subdivision exempting 40‑acre sales from MSPA | Photos/Compton survey show pre‑MSPA division into 40‑acre parcels, so sales are exempt | MSPA requires a recorded certificate of survey; unrecorded photos have no legal effect | Held: No — MSPA §11‑3862(1) requires a recorded certificate of survey; unrecorded photos insufficient |
| Whether the 1984 Bloch Agreement constituted a "division of land" creating segregated parcels (i.e., a pre‑1993 subdivision) | Agreement describing 260 forty‑acre tracts and permitting conveyances created segregated parcels (a division) | Agreement was a contract to sell a large tract described by reference to 40‑acre sites; payment structure did not create segregated parcels | Held: No — agreement was an installment/structured sale of one tract, not a segregation creating a subdivision |
| Whether equitable estoppel prevents Corbett from refusing to record deeds | Prior recordings and clerk assurances purportedly led Towe to rely on grandfathering | Corbett’s prior actions were misstatements of law, not material factual misrepresentations | Held: No — equitable estoppel unavailable for inadvertent/legal misrepresentations (doctrine requires misrepresentation of fact) |
Key Cases Cited
- LaMere v. Farmers Ins. Exch., 362 Mont. 379, 265 P.3d 617 (discussing summary judgment standard) (court cited for de novo review on summary judgment)
- Wicklund v. Sundheim, 383 Mont. 1, 367 P.3d 403 (contract interpretation governed by clear/unambiguous language)
- Habets v. Swanson, 303 Mont. 410, 16 P.3d 1035 (extrinsic evidence used only when contract ambiguous)
- Elk Park Ranch v. Park Cnty., 282 Mont. 154, 935 P.2d 1131 (equitable estoppel does not apply to misrepresentations of law)