NO. 95-224 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1996 

BIG SKY HIDDEN VILLAGE 

OWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC., 

Plaintiff and Appellant, 

HIDDEN VILLAGE, INC., 

Defendant and Respondent 

and 

CARLISLE NEITHOLD, et al., 

Defendants and Respondents. 

HIDDEN VILLAGE, INC., 

Third Party Plaintiff 

and Respondent, 

v. 

CALVIN JEROME HANAN, et al., 

Third Party Defendants 

and Appellants. 

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Eighteenth Judicial District, 

In and for the County of Gallatin, 

The Honorable Larry W. Moran, Judge presiding. 

COUNSEL OF RECORD: 

For Appellant: 

Gregory 0. Morgan, Robert Cameron, Bozeman, 

Montana; K. Kent Koolen, Moulton Law Firm (Big Sky 

Hidden Village Owners Association, Calvin Hanan, et 

al.) 

For Respondent: 

James H. Goetz, Robert K. Baldwin, Goetz, Madden & 

Dunn I Bozeman, Montana (Hidden Village, Inc.) ; 

Calvin?. Stacey, Billings, Montana (Hidden Village, 

arlisle, Neithold, et al.) 

Submitted on Briefs: January 4, 1996 

AFR", 3 I998 Decided: April 23, 1996 
Justice James C. Nelson delivered the Opinion of the Court. 

Big Sky Hidden Village Owners Association (Big Sky) appeals 

from a judgment and memorandum and order entered by the Eighteenth 

Judicial District Court, Gallatin County granting Hidden Village, 

Inc.'s (HVI) motion for partial summary judgment, denying Big Sky's 

motion for partial summary judgment, and denying HVI's motion to 

strike. We affirm. 

ISSUES 

1. Whether real property adjacent to a condominium 

development, which was never submitted to Montana's Unit Ownership 

Act by description on the condominium declaration or amendment 

thereto, is subject to the act and the declaration. 

2. Whether the owner of real property adjacent to a 

condominium development may use the roads running through the 

condominium property to access the adjacent land. 

3. Whether the owner of real property adjacent to a 

condominium development may use the water and sewer mains running 

through the condominium property to serve the adjacent land. 

BACKGROUND 

On December 15, 1980, the Gallatin County Board of County 

Commissioners approved Big Sky Camper Village Inc.'s preliminary 

application for a planned unit development (PUD) located on the 

site of the existing Big Sky Camper Village for the construction of 

a maximum of 198 condominium units. The proposed development 

consisted of 37.E acres located approximately one and one-half 

miles west of Meadow Village. Those 37.8 acres encompass the Big 

Sky Hidden Village Condominium and HVI's remaining property. The 

findings of fact and order approving the PUD did not restrict where 

on the 37.8 acres the 198 units were to be placed. The findings of 

2 
fact and order approving the PUD stated that "adequate access to 

all units should be provided even though the roads will be private 

ones," and ordered that "the roads are the responsibility of the 

developer until they are turned over to the Property Owner's 

Association and that the roads will be private roads, for which the 

County will have no responsibility." The Gallatin County Board of 

County Commissioners' order further stated that "water supply and 

sewage disposal will be handled by existing central systems." The 

rural improvement district agreed to provide sewage collection and 

disposal to the 198 condominium units. Additionally, Lone Mountain 

Springs, Inc., agreed to provide domestic water to the 198 

condominium units. 

Pursuant to 5 70-23-103, MCA, Big Sky Camper Village, Inc., 

filed the declaration and by-laws for the Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium. The declaration provides in pertinent part: 

Declarant reserves the right from time to time (but on or 

before 10 years from the date of the initial recording of 

this Declaration) to expand the number of units to be 

included in this condominium by subjecting the 

condominium site plan as shown in Exhibit "CT' to the 

construction of additional units, and to provide for up 

to 198 additional units for an over-all total of 198 

units of one, two, or three bedroom units. 

The declaration submitted Tract I-A to the Condominium Act and has 

at various times submitted additional lands contained within 

certificate of survey 1605 (COS 1605). Specifically, the original 

declaration describes the real property submitted by the 

declaration and subject to the Montana Unit Ownership Act as 

Tract I-A of the Condominium Subdivision known as Hidden 

Village Condominium recorded on 1980, in Book 

of Plats at Page 

situated within the-d 

Gallatmounty, Montana and 

l/4 of Section 35 Township 

L South, Range 3 East, M.P.M., Gallatin County, 

Montana. 

3 
Tract I-A does not include the entire area covered by co.9 1605. 

Although the land in dispute in the instant case is neither part of 

Tract I-A nor has been submitted as an amendment to the 

declaration, it is included within the description of the PUD. 

HVI is the successor in interest to Camper Village, the 

original declarant/developer. Of the approved 198 units, 141 have 

been constructed as Big Sky Hidden Village Condominiums. When BVI 

conveyed the condominium units, it did not reserve any easement, 

right of access, or right of use for the roads, water lines, or 

sewer lines. However, the roads and the sewer and water lines 

cross HVI's property in order to reach the Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium. The land included in COS 1605 but not included in the 

declaration belongs to HVI. This remaining land surrounds the Big 

Sky Hidden Village Condominium on three sides. See diagram. 

On April 2, 1991, HVI applied to the Department of Health and 

Environmental Sciences, Lone Mountain Springs, and Rural 

Improvement District #305 for approval of 57 additional units. Big 

Sky then filed suit in the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, 

Gallatin County, seeking a declaratory judgment that the land 

within COS 1605 is subject to the declaration, that the roads 

within the Condominium are private and not available for public 

use, and that the water and sewer systems are the property of the 

unit owners and cannot be expanded without their permission. HVI 

moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment 

that the real property owned by HVI within COS 1605 is not subject 

to the Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium declaration or bylaws. 

4 
On June 15, 1994, the District Court granted HVI's motion, stating 

that HVI's property within COS 1605 is not subject to the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium declaration or bylaws. 

On June 30, 1994, Big Sky moved for partial summary judgment 

on the remaining issues. In its March 31, 1995 memorandum and 

order, the District Court denied Big Sky's motion ruling that the 

roads, while private, are not the exclusive property of Big Sky or 

its members; that the roads are a public right-of-way for all 

purposes other than maintenance; that HVI has the right to use the 

roads for ingress and egress to its property because it has 

acquired easements by implication and necessity; and that HVI has 

the right to use the water and sewer systems. On April 14, 1995, 

Big Sky filed its notice of appeal from the District Court's 

judgment and memorandum and order granting HVI's cross motion for 

partial summary judgment. 

HVI filed in this Court a motion to dismiss the appeal arguing 

that neither District Court order is reviewable because there were 

multiple claims and because the orders were not final. Citing 

Hennen v. Omega Enterprises, Inc. (1994), 264 Mont. 505, 507-08, 

872 P.2d 797, 799, we held in a June 1, 1995 order that the 

District Court's March 1995 order is appealable under Rule l(b) (2), 

M.R.App.P., because it was a denial of injunctive relief and that 

the June 15, 1994 judgment is appealable because it is an 

intermediate order or decision. 

-, 
STANDARD OF REVIEW 

We review a grant of summary judgment de ZIOVO using the same 

criteria initially used by the District Court under Rule 56, 

M.R.Civ.P. Mead v. M.S.B., Inc. (19941, 264 Mont. 465, 470, 872 

P.2d 782, 785. Therefore, we determine whether there is an absence 

of genuine issues of material fact and whether the moving party is 

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Mead, 872 P.2d at 705. 

DISCUSSION 

1. Whether real property adjacent to a condominium 

development, which was never submitted to Montana's Unit Ownership 

Act by description on the condominium declaration or amendment 

thereto, is subject to the act and the declaration. 

Big Sky claims that the District Court erred in finding that 

the land owned by HVI is not subject to the Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium declaration or bylaws, and thus is not subject to 

Montana's Unit Ownership Act, Title 70, chapter 23, MCA. HVI 

argues that the District Court correctly determined that the tenyear time limit in the declaration only applies to land included in 

that declaration or added by amendment thereto and does not limit 

HVI's right to develop its remaining land. 

Section 70-23-103, MCA, sets forth the applicability of the 

Unit Ownership Act establishing a condominium as follows: 

Applicability -- submission by declaration required. In 

order to submit any property to the provisions of this 

chapter, the sole owner or sole lessee or all of the 

owners or all of the lessees thereof shall execute, 

acknowledge, and record a declaration in the office of 

the recording officer of the county in which the property 

is located. The declaration shall be executed in 

accordance with 70-23-301. 

6 
Section 70-23-102(6), MCA, provides that a declaration is the 

instrument by which property is submitted to the provisions of the 

Unit Ownership Act. Actual filing of the declaration is the action 

"which subjects the property in question to the provisions of the 

act." Jordan v. Elizabethan Manor (1979), 181 Mont. 424, 430, 593 

P.2d 1049, 1053. A declaration shall contain among other things "a 

description of the land, whether leased or in fee simple, on which 

the building is or is to be located." Section 70-23-301, MCA. A 

certificate of survey, on the other hand, is not a declaration and 

does not submit land to the Unit Ownership Act. 

Accordingly, the declaration for the Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium and not COS 1605 determines the land subject to the 

provisions of the Unit Ownership Act. Specifically, the original 

declaration included only Tract I-A. Subsequent amendments to the 

declaration included Tracts I-XI and the Recreation Tract. Big Sky 

concedes that if the property in question is not on Big Sky Hidden 

Village Condominium land, then it is not subject to the 

declaration. 

However, Big Sky argues that the description of property in 

the original declaration is incomplete and therefore COS 1605 

properly determines the property included in the Big Sky Hidden 

Village Condominium. While section II of the declaration broadly 

states that the property included in the Condominium is located in 

"the SW l/4 of Section 35, Township 6 South, Range 3 East, M.P.M., 

Gallatin County, Montana," the original site plan (Exhibit B), 

incorporated within the original declaration and recorded with it, 

7 
specifically includes a metes and bounds description of the 

property submitted to the act. Similar site plans were submitted 

with each amendment to the declaration. Therefore, the declaration 

contained a complete and specific description of the property. 

HVI argues that the ten-year limitation contained in the 

declaration only governs the addition of units to the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium, not development of land outside the 

Condominium. HVI further argues that the term "expansion" in the 

declaration refers to the addition of units or land to the 

Condominium and not to other property owned by HVI. Moreover, HVI 

notes that the ownership and voting section of the declaration 

states that 'I [‘cl he Hidden Village Condominium consists of the real 

property described above . . .'I Exhibit C to the declaration 

shows "the proposed or projected location of the additional 

buildings and lands which may be added by the declarant." 

Therefore, for other land to be included within the Condominium, it 

would have to be added by amendment. Because the amendments to the 

declaration do not include HVI's land in question, HVI argues that 

the land is not part of the Condominium. 

There are no provisions within the declaration that purport to 

prevent HVI from developing land not placed within the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium. The ten-year limitation in the 

declaration only governs the addition to units to the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium, not the separate development of HVI's 

land outside the Condominium. Thus the term "expansion" and the 

limitation thereof, applies only to additional units to the Big Sky 

8 
Hidden Village Condominium, not the separate construction of 

separate improvements on land owned by HVI outside the Condominium. 

The Gallatin Board of County Commissioners approved 198 units; Lone 

Mountain Springs agreed to provide service for 198 units, and RID 

305 agreed to provide service for 198 units. The Gallatin County 

Clerk and Recorder has the declaration on file to give notice to 

any interested party exactly what land is included in the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium. Accordingly, we hold that the District 

Court correctly found that HVI's real property adjacent to the Big 

Sky Hidden Village Condominium was never submitted to Montana's 

Unit Ownership Act by description on the Condominium declaration or 

amendment thereto. 

2. Whether the owner of real property adjacent to a 

condominium development may use the roads running through the 

condominium property to access the adjacent land. 

Big Sky contends that the roads going through the Condominium 

are private and therefore HVI may not use them. HVI argues that 

the roads are public and in the alternative that HVI has an 

easement by implication and an easement by necessity to use the 

roads. 

As early as 1973, what is now Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium and HVI's remaining property was laced with a system of 

roads accommodating vehicles for use as an R.V. park. Therefore, 

in 1980, when Camper Village sought approval of the PUD, a series 

of roads already existed on the land to be developed. The roads 

extended through what is now HVI's remaining property and what is 

now the Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium. Those roads which 

9 
predated the PUD approval, the filing of the declaration, and the 

construction of the first condominium unit, are the same roads that 

continue to serve the Condominium and HVI's land today. 

Additionally, in approving the PUD, the Gallatin County Board of 

County Commissioners found that "to preserve to the maximum extent 

possible the natural characteristics of the land . . . adequate 

access to all units should be provided even though the roads will 

be private ones." 

Camper Village, Inc., and HVI developed the Big Sky Hidden 

Village Condominium in phases. Camper Village, Inc., initially 

submitted to the declaration Tract I-A comprised of a few acres 

and 14 units. Camper Village Inc., and HVI continued to develop 

the Condominium in phases, adding small parcels of land to the 

declaration. During this phased development, unit owners had to 

cross property owned by Camper Village or HVI to obtain access to 

their condominiums. Similarly, to obtain access to the remaining 

land to construct additional units, Camper Village and HVI used the 

existing roads that cross the property that is already part of the 

Condominium. Thus HVI claims that it had an easement by necessity 

allowing it to use the existing road system. 

An easement by necessity is a subspecies of an easement by 

implication that arises through strict necessity for exit and 

access to a parcel of property. Graham v. Mack (1984), 216 Mont. 

165, 175, 699 P.Zd 590, 596; see also Schmid v. McDowell (19821, 

199 Mont. 233, 237, 649 P.2d 431, 432. In Schmid, a property owner 

brought action against a neighboring property owner seeking a 

10 
declaration of an easement by necessity. We defined an easement by 

necessity as follows: 

[wlhere an owner of land conveys a parcel thereof which 

has no outlet to a highway except over the remaining 

lands of the grantor or over the land of strangers, a way 

of necessity exists over the remaining lands of the 

grantor. Similarly, a way of necessity is found when the 

owner of lands retains the inner portion conveying to 

another the balance, across which he must go for exit and 

access. 

Schmid, 649 P.2d at 433 (citations omitted); see also Peters v. 

Johnson (1983), 203 Mont. 120, 661 P.Zd 24. Further, we 

distinguished an easement by necessity from other implied easements 

in noting an easement by necessity need not be in existence at the 

time of conveyance, but rather the conveyance gives rise to the 

easement. However, the tracts over which the easement is claimed 

must have had a common ownership or unity of title immediately 

prior to the severance giving rise to the necessity. Schmid, 649 

P.2d at 433. 

Subsequently in Graham, we set forth two basic elements of an 

easement by necessity: 1) unity of ownership, and 2) strict 

necessity at the time the unified tracts are separated. Graham, 

699 P.Zd at 596. In Graham, we held that no implied easement 

existed absent unified title of the property involved. We 

reiterated the strong public policy against shutting off a tract of 

land and thus rendering it unusable. "Where an owner of land 

conveys a parcel which has no outlet to a highway except over the 

remaining lands of the grantor or over the lands of strangers, a 

way of necessity exists over the remaining lands of the grantor." 

Graham, 699 P.2d at 596 (quoting Schmid, 649 P.2d at 433). 

11 
However, the way granted may not be over the land of a third party 

or stranger to the title. Graham, 699 P.2d at 596-97; see also 

Woods v. Houle (1988), 235 Mont. 158, 163, 766 P.2d 250, 253. 

In Woods, the district court granted an easement by necessity. 

In reversing the district court, we held that the respondent was 

not able to meet the requirements of an easement by necessity as 

set forth in Graham. The easement by necessity did not give the 

respondent access to a public road but only to a third party's 

land, and as we held in Graham, a way granted may not be on the 

land of a third party. Moreover, the respondent had an easement by 

prescription which is incompatible with an easement by necessity. 

Woods, 766 P.2d at 253. 

In Smith v. Moran (1985), 215 Mont. 31, 38, 693 P.2d 1246, 

1251, we considered the Gallatin County Subdivision Regulation 

4.4.2, which provides that: 

[wlhen a new subdivision adjoins unsubdivided land and 

reasonable access thereto must pass through the new 

subdivision, streets and rights of way shall be provided 

to allow suitable access to the unsubdivided land. 

In Smith, there was evidence that plaintiffs had ample alternative 

access to their property, and there was no evidence to suggest that 

access across the subdivision was essential. We further noted that 

"any unique property interest in abutting landowners is limited to 

the right only to adequate access necessary to connect the 

landowner to the general street system." Smith, 693 P.2d at 1251 

(citing Wynia v. City of Great Falls (19791, 183 Mont. 458, 600 

P.Zd 802). 

12 
In the instant case, HVI meets both the unity of title 

requirement and the requirement of strict necessity at the time the 

unified tracts were separated. Camper Village, HVI's predecessor, 

owned all of COS 1605 and conveyed part of that tract to the Big 

Sky unit owners. At the time Camper Village conveyed Tract I-A to 

the Big Sky unit owners, submitting Tract I-A to the declaration, 

the strict necessity of access and exit to the public roads arose. 

In his affidavit, Jack Schunke, an engineer, stated that if not 

afforded access across the existing roads, HVI will have great 

difficulty developing additional property, if it may do so at all. 

Moreover, he stated that the road some of the unit owners use to 

enter the Condominium crosses HVI's land. Carlisle Neithold, 

president of HVI stated in his affidavit that HVI does not own 

abutting land outside COS 1605, and cannot obtain access to its 

remaining land without using the existing roadways. Thus there is 

evidence that HVI does not have ample alternative access to its 

property. 

Big Sky's argument that the ten-year limitation in the 

declaration precludes an easement by implication and by necessity 

because it negates the presumed intent to reserve easements and the 

necessity for those easements does not persuade us. As stated 

above, the ten-year limitation in the declaration only addresses 

HVI's right to continue to add land or units to the Big Sky Hidden 

Village Condominium and does not address HVI's right to use the 

roads. 

13 
Accordingly, the District Court correctly granted summary 

judgment in favor of HVI, determining that HVI has an easement by 

necessity. Because we hold that the District Court correctly 

granted summary judgment on the easement by necessity, we need not 

reach the issue of HVI's alleged easement by implication. 

3. Whether the owner of real property adjacent to a 

condominium development may use the water and sewer mains running 

through the condominium property to serve the adjacent land. 

Big Sky contends that the sewer and water systems are common 

elements and therefore HVI has no right to use them. HVI concedes 

that the water and sewer systems may be common elements held by the 

condominium unit owners as tenants in common, but contends that Big 

Sky does not have exclusive ownership of the water and sewer 

systems. In fact, HVI argues that public utilities own the water 

and sewer systems, have the responsibility for maintaining the 

systems, and therefore have the exclusive right and duty to 

determine who hooks up to the systems. 

In its definition section, the declaration includes water and 

sewer lines as general common elements. Section 70-23-102(S) (d), 

MCA, also includes water and waste disposal as general common 

elements. Section 70-23-404, MCA, explains the nature of the 

ownership interest in general common elements as follows: 

The undivided interest in the common elements shall not 

be separated from the unit to which it appertains and 

shall be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though 

such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in 

the conveyance or other instrument. 

Consequently, each unit owner may use the common elements for their 

intended purposes. See § 70-23-503, MCA. The bylaws of a 

14 
condominium provide for the maintenance, repair, and replacement of 

the common elements or the additions and improvements thereto. 

Section 70-23-504, MCA. 

HVI argues that while the Condominium members may own the 

water and sewer lines, they do so as tenants in common and cannot 

preclude another party from a right to an easement to use the same 

common elements. In fact, HVI argues that Big Sky's claim to 

exclusive LlSCS and ownership of the water and sewer lines 

contradicts the fact that Lone Mountain Springs and Water and Sewer 

District (WSD) #363 exercise the right to determine who hooks up to 

the respective systems and contradicts the approval of the PUD 

allowing HVI to obtain water and sewer service through the existing 

systems. 

Prior to 1973, a developer installed the water distribution 

mains located within what is now Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium. When the Gallatin county Board of county 

Commissioners approved the PUD in 1980, the water distribution 

system consisting of a storage tank on the hill above the 

development and numerous water distribution mains and loops 

therefore already existed. Additionally, prior to 1972, a 

developer installed a series of sewer collection mains on the 

development. Rural Improvement District #305 obtained ownership of 

the sewer collection mains that transported waste water from the 

development to a treatment facility that it owned and operated. 

After the PUD was approved, Camper Village, Inc. and HVI 

developed the Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium in phases. During 

15 
the phased development, the unit owners had to use the water 

distribution mains and sewer collection mains passing underneath 

Camper Village, Inc. property. Similarly, when Camper Village, Inc. 

and HVI constructed units for inclusion into the Condominium, they 

hooked those units up to the existing water distribution and sewer 

collection mains running, in part, under the Condominium property. 

Lone Mountain Springs owns the water tank and wells serving 

Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium and has repaired and maintained 

the lines servicing the Condominium. Two water sources serve the 

Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium, a well not far from the 

condominiums and a well that serves the Sweetgrass Hills 

Subdivision. Therefore, two water distribution mains enter the 

Condominium, one from the nearby well and one from the water system 

that serves the Sweetgrass Hills Subdivision. These mains 

intersect and travel to the water storage tank on Big Sky Lumber 

Company's property. The Condominium derives water pressure and 

capacity from the water storage tank. That tank is crucial to Big 

Sky Hidden Village Condominium's continued service. The water 

distribution mains that transport water through HVI's property to 

the Condominium and on to a third party's property existed before 

Camper Village bought the property it then conveyed to HVI and to 

the Condominium. Those same mains now transport water from a third 

party's property, through HVI's property, through the Condominium 

through HVI's property and to the water storage tank. 

Lone Mountain Springs has maintained and repaired the water 

system serving the Condominium. Big Sky does not pay for the 

16 
repair and maintenance expenses to the water system. Lone Mountain 

Springs installed a telemetry system to regulate the flow of water 

into the storage tank to prevent the tank from overflowing or 

becoming empty. After a well had become contaminated, Lone 

Mountain Springs connected the water distribution pipes in the Big 

Sky Hidden Village condominium to the Sweetgrass Hills Subdivision 

water system. 

Section 69-4-511 Cl), MCA, provides for the financial 

responsibility and liability for water service as follows: 

A property owner is responsible for the costs of 

constructing privately supplied water service pipelines 

from the main to his premises and for maintaining service 

pipelines from his property line to his premises. 

Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium did not construct the water 

lines on its premises or the lines from its premises to the main 

water lines, nor has it paid for the maintenance or repair of the 

water lines from its property line to its premises. 

The sewer collection mains also pass through property owned by 

HVI, the Condominium and on to property owned by third parties. 

Originally, Rural Improvement District #305 serviced Camper Village 

Inc.'s property and then serviced both HVI's and the Condominium's 

property. Rural Improvement District #305 transferred its assets, 

debts, and liabilities to WSD #363; it included in the assets 

transferred existing sewer collection pipes serving the Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium. WSD #363 was organized by vote of the 

citizens of the Big Sky area. All of the sewer and waste water 

generated by the Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium flows into the 

17 
sewer collection mains and sewage treatment facility owned by WSD 

#363. 

RID #305 maintained the sewer collection system servicing the 

condominium. RID #305 hired a firm to conduct a video inspection 

of the sewer mains and hired an irrigation company to dig up and 

repair portions of the sewer mains serving the Condominium. WSD 

#363 has also maintained the lines within the Condominium and has 

given approvals and disapprovals for hook up of additional users 

within the Condominium. Therefore, WSD #363 clearly exercises 

indicia of ownership of the sewer lines in the Big Sky Hidden 

Village Condominium. WSD #363 agreed to provide service to all 198 

units in the PUD. Consequently, the annual assessment HVI pays to 

Gallatin County includes payment to WSD #363. 

The undisputed evidence contained in the affidavits indicates 

that Lone Mountain Springs and WSD #363 claim ownership of the 

systems they operate and maintain. The evidence of maintenance and 

repair substantiates that claim. To the contrary, although Big Sky 

Hidden Village Condominium claims ownership of the systems, it 

provides no evidence to support its claim. The Condominium failed 

to present a persuasive argument in its brief to support ownership 

of the water and sewer systems. Therefore, because WSD #363 owns 

the sewer system that services the Big Sky Hidden Village 

Condominium and Lone Mountain Springs owns the water system that 

services the Big Sky Hidden Village Condominium, the District Court 

correctly determined that Big Sky may not interfere with or control 

Lone Mountain Springs' or WSD #363's service and hook ups. 

18 
Affirmed. 

i9