No. 89-467 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1990 

LEONARD CHRISTIANSON, 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

RICHARD GASVODA, PAT RYAN 

and JACK WHITAKER, acting as 

the BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF CASCADE COUNTY, 

State of Montana, 

Defendants and Respondents. 

'- -b 

P 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Cascade, 

The Honorable Joel G. Roth, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

George McCabe, Jardine, Stephenson, Blewett 

and Weaver, Great Falls, Montana 

For Respondent: 

Patrick Paul, Cascade County Attorney, and 

Stephen E. Hagerman, Deputy Cascade County Attorney, 

Great Falls, Montana 

Submitted on Briefs: March 8, 1990 

Decided: April 5, 1990 

Filed: 
Justice R. C. McDonough delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Leonard Christianson appeals from an order of the Eighth 

Judicial District, Cascade County, granting summary judgment in 

favor of respondents Richard Gasvoda, Pat Ryan and Jack Whitaker 

acting as the Board of County Commissioners (Board). The District 

Court found that the Board acted properly in denying Christiansonts 

application for approval of a subdivision. The court further found 

that Christianson had no legal standing to bring this action and 

that the Board was immune from suit. We affirm. 

Because we hold that the Board acted properly in denying 

Christiansonts application, we need not address every issue 

submitted. The one issue to be addressed is: 

Whether the Board properly rejected Leonard Christianson's 

proposed subdivision plat. 

Leonard Christianson (Christianson) is a Great Falls developer 

who has previously developed three subdivisions. These plats were 

developed in an area south of Great Falls, Montana in Cascade 

County. Following development of this property by Christianson, 

and further subdivision by others not named in this lawsuit, 

residents of an area known as Gibson Flats began to experience 

increased drainage and flooding problems. Apparently, the 

subdivisions are located above Gibson Flats. Precipitation in the 

form of rain or snowfall, has always drained from this area onto 

Gibson Flats. However, following development the drainage problem 

and subsequent flooding has intensified. 

Despite these problems, Christianson sought to develop another 

2 
subdivision in the area. He therefore entered into a buy-sell 

agreement with the owners of undeveloped agricultural property 

which lies next to his existing subdivisions. According to the 

agreement Christianson agreed to buy the property on the condition 

that his subdivision plan was approved. Christianson signed the 

agreement on August 1, 1987. However the owners did not sign until 

June 23, 1988. 

Christianson then filed an application for approval of the 

proposed subdivision with the Board of County Commissioners. 

Following this filing, several residents of Gibson Flats objected 

upon the assertion that the development would increase surface 

water drainage onto Gibson Flats. On October 3, 1987, the Board 

approved the preliminary plat on the condition that Christianson 

provide adequate drainage. Christianson then submitted a 

supplemental engineering plan, which provided that two water 

detention ponds would be built that would hold surface water runoff 

temporarily. According to Christianson's theory, this temporary 

impoundment would prevent any further flooding of Gibson Flats 

caused by runoff from his new subdivision. 

The residents of Gibson Flats were not satisfied, however, 

and as a result they continued to object. The Board investigated 

further and it also began to doubt that the detention ponds would 

solve the flooding problem. In particular, it found Christianson's 

engineering plan and the testimony of his expert witness, who 

offered different testimony at two separate Board hearings, 

unconvincing. Consequently, the Board rejected Christianson's 
application on November 18, 1987. In rejecting the application, 

the Board maintained that no further development should occur until 

the drainage problem, caused by prior development, was solved. 

Following this denial, Christianson filed an action in 

District Court seeking damages for inverse condemnation. Both 

parties filed motions for summary judgment. The Board's motion was 

granted on June 15, 1989. This appeal follows. 

In determining whether subdivision approval should be given 

the Board must determine whether the proposed development is in the 

public interest. Section 76-3-608(1), PICA. The Board, basing 

their decision upon all of the evidence presented, found that 

Christianson's proposal was not in the public interest. This 

decision was within the scope of their discretion and therefore 

their denial should be upheld. Pearson Kent Corporation v. Bear 

(New York 1971), 271 N.E.2d 218. 

The District Court, in its review of the Board's actions, 

found that there was substantial evidence that the proposed 

subdivision would adversely affect public health, safety and 

welfare. In particular, it found that the flooding problems which 

were exacerbated by previous development justified rejection of the 

proposed plat. The Board based its conclusion upon testimony given 

at Board hearings, numerous letters submitted by the public, and 

personal observations of the problems at Gibson Flats. Moreover, 

the Board, as fact finders, were in the best position to weigh 

conflicting testimony and determine the credibility of the 

witnesses. They chose not to accept the testimony of 
Christianson's expert because he changed his opinion concerning the 

drainage on at least one occasion and his testimony conflicted with 

the Board's experience with the Gibson Flats problem. In short we 

hold that the Board's decision to deny further development pending 

resolution of existing drainage problems and assurances that this 

development would not further contribute to the problem was not an 

abuse of discretion. 

Moreover we also note that even assuming the Board's decision 

was incorrect, Christianson did not suffer any real damages. At 

the time of denial, he was not the owner of the property in 

question, nor did he have any interest therein. The sellers of the 

land did not sign the buy-sell agreement until June 23, 1988. The 

denial occurred on November 16, 1987 and this lawsuit was filed on 

January 28, 1988. Therefore, Christianson had no possible legal 

interest in the land until seven months following the denial of his 

application and five months following the instigation of this 

lawsuit. Furthermore, the buy-sell agreement was conditional and 

Christianson's obligation to buy did not arise until subdivision 

approval was granted. Given these facts, Christianson did not have 

any standing to maintain this litigation. 

The judgment of the District Court upholding the Board of 

County Commissioners is affirmed. 

We Concur: