Mont. Code Ann. § 76-3-625 (3)

(2015)

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 from the date of the written 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
2026 MT 8 Jan 27, 2026 Affirmed
Tclsc v. Lincoln Cty
Majority by Katherine M. Bidegaray · 5 to 0
ed summary judgment to defendants on this issue. TCLSC does not challenge this aspect of the court’s judgment on appeal. 5 STANDARD OF REVIEW ¶11 Under § 76-3-625(2), MCA, a party aggrieved by a local governing body’s decision to approve, conditionally approve, or deny a proposed subdivision may appeal that decision to distri
2024 MT 122N Jun 4, 2024 Affirmed
BlueMoon Refinery v. Flathead Cty
Majority by Beth Baker · 5 to 0
Bluemoon’s bill of costs was untimely and included costs not allowed by law. We affirm. ¶3 In November 2022, Bluemoon petitioned for a writ of review under § 76-3-625, MCA, challenging Flathead County’s denial of Bluemoon’s request for a variance to the Flathead County Subdivision Regulations. Bluemoon argued that Flathead Co
2023 MT 208 Nov 7, 2023 Affirmed in part, reversed in part
Hanson v. Fort Peck
Majority by Dirk M. Sandefur · 7 to 0
nd amended answers, the Town moved for summary judgment pursuant to M. R. Civ. P. 56 on the asserted grounds that the stated contract claim was time-barred by § 76-3-625(1), MCA (180-day limitation period regarding compensatory claims against local governments based on a final subdivision action/decision/order or subdivision regulation
2022 MT 229 Nov 15, 2022 Reversed
Tam v. Missoula County
Majority by Ingrid Gustafson · 4 to 3
e-barred and insufficiently pled. ¶2 We address the following restated issues on appeal: 1. Did the District Court err when it determined a claim pursuant to § 76-3-625(1), MCA (2019), is subject to a 30-day statute of limitations? 2. Did the District Court err when it determined the Appellant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims lacked a suf
2022 MT 229 Nov 15, 2022 Reversed
Tam v. Missoula County
Dissenting by Mike McGrath · 4 to 3
concurring and dissenting. ¶35 While I concur with the Majority on Issue One that the District Court erred in determining that Tai Tam’s claim pursuant to § 76-3-625(1), MCA (2019), was subject to a 30-day statute of limitations, I dissent to the holding that the District Court erred in determining that Tai Tam’s due process, reg
Official Annotations archive.org, 2015 edition
History:
En. Sec. 10, Ch. 468, L. 1995
Amd. Sec. 14, Ch. 298, L. 2005 (SB 116 - Laible, Rick (R) SD 44)
Amd. Sec. 22, Ch. 446, L. 2009 (HB 486 - MacLaren, Gary (R) HD 89)