Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-625

(2007)

Violations -- actions against governing body

(1) A person who has filed with the governing body an application for a subdivision under this chapter may bring an action in district court to sue the governing body to recover actual damages caused by a final action, decision, or order of the governing body or a regulation adopted pursuant to this chapter that is arbitrary or capricious.

(2) A party identified in subsection (3) who is aggrieved by a decision of the governing body to approve, conditionally approve, or deny an application and preliminary plat for a proposed subdivision or a final subdivision plat may, within 30 days after the decision, appeal to the district court in the county in which the property involved is located. The petition must specify the grounds upon which the appeal is made.

(3) The following parties may appeal under the provisions of subsection (2):

(a) the subdivider;

(b) a landowner with a property boundary contiguous to the proposed subdivision or a private landowner with property within the county or municipality where the subdivision is proposed if that landowner can show a likelihood of material injury to the landowner's property or its value;

(c) the county commissioners of the county where the subdivision is proposed; and

(d) (i) a first-class municipality, as described in 7-1-4111, if a subdivision is proposed within 3 miles of its limits;

(ii) a second-class municipality, as described in 7-1-4111, if a subdivision is proposed within 2 miles of its limits; and

(iii) a third-class municipality or a town, as described in 7-1-4111, if a subdivision is proposed within 1 mile of its limits.

(4) For the purposes of this section, "aggrieved" means a person who can demonstrate a specific personal and legal interest, as distinguished from a general interest, who has been or is likely to be specially and injuriously affected by the decision.

Opinions construing this section

14 opinions
2022 MT 105 May 31, 2022 Affirmed in part, reversed in part
L & C County v. Wirth
Majority by James Jeremiah Shea · 5 to 0
r Subdivision. 2. Whether the District Court erred by granting summary judgment to the County and dismissing Wirth’s counterclaim for statutory damages under § 76-3-625(1), MCA. 3. Whether the District Court erred in its interpretation of § 7 of the Covenants as obligating Wirth to serve each lot within the Bridge Creek Estates Major
2013 MT 298 Oct 15, 2013 Affirmed
Yorlum v. Lincoln Co
Majority by Laurie McKinnon · 5 to 0
thereof on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Lincoln County, Montana. Plat #6588.” ¶8 None of the neighboring landowners appealed, pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA, from the Board’s preliminary approval or final approval of Amended Plat No. 6588. Nor did any of the landowners sue to enforce the subdivision covenants. A
2011 MT 91 May 3, 2011 Affirmed
Heffernan v. Missoula City Council
Majority by James C. Nelson · 5 to 0
vision. ¶24 Muth-Hillberry intervened as a party-defendant. The City then filed a motion to dismiss on the ground that Neighbors did not have standing under § 76-3-625, MCA, to appeal a subdivision decision. The District Court concluded, however, that Neighbors met the requirements of the statute. The parties then filed cross-moti
2010 MT 274 Dec 21, 2010 Affirmed
MM&I v. Gallatin Co. Commissioners
Majority by James C. Nelson · 5 to 0
view criteria, the Commission denied the application by a vote of two to one. ¶8 MM&I brought suit against the Commission on September 10, 2003, pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA, seeking to overturn the Commission’s denial of their subdivision application and seeking damages for lost profits. However, almost three years elapsed befor
2010 MT 107 May 11, 2010 Affirmed in part, reversed in part
Hansen v. Granite County
Majority by James C. Nelson · 5 to 0
ommissioners did not issue their written findings denying the subdivision application until May 15, 2007. The Hansens timely appealed that decision pursuant to § 76-3-625, MCA. ¶18 A four-day bench trial before the Third Judicial District Court was held in October 2008. Nine months later, the court issued its Findings of Fact, Con
Official Annotations archive.org, 2007 edition
History:
En. Sec. 10, Ch. 468, L. 1995
Amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 298, L. 2005 (SB 116 - Laible, Rick (R) SD 44)