97-473

 No. 97-473

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

 

1997

MISSOULA RURAL FIRE DISTRICT, a political 

subdivision of the State of Montana; ARLENE HARRIS; 

GERALD SAULTER and NANCY SAULTER; 

MARY MARGARET ZECKMAN; JAMES SCHINDLER 

and CATHY J. SCHINDLER; ARWOOD D. STICKNEY 

and ELIZABETH M. STICKNEY; VERNA LANGE; 

JAMES L. GLANTZ and JOANNA JOYCE GLANTZ; 

KRISTINE A. SOMMERVILLE and LOUIS J. SOMMERVILLE; 

 Plaintiffs and Appellants,

 v.

CITY OF MISSOULA, a municipal corporation,

 Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District,

 In and for the County of Missoula,

 The Honorable Jeffrey M. Sherlock, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

 For Appellants:

 M. Richard Gebhardt, Attorney at Law, Missoula, Montana

 For Respondent:

 Jim Nugent, Missoula City Attorney, Missoula, Montana

 Submitted on Briefs: November 13, 1997

 Decided: December 23, 1997

Filed:

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (1 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

 __________________________________________

 Clerk

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the opinion of the Court.

 In February 1996, the Missoula Rural Fire District and a number of private

property owners (appellants) filed an action in the District Court for the Fourth 

Judicial

District in Missoula County against the City of Missoula to challenge the validity 

of three

municipal annexation resolutions adopted on January 22, 1996. The parties 

subsequently

filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On April 30, 1997, following review of the

record, the District Court issued an order granting the City of Missoula's motion for

summary judgment, and denying appellants'. Appellants timely filed a motion for

reconsideration, which the District Court denied by way of a June 16, 1997, order. 

It

is from these two District Court orders that appellants appeal. For the reasons 

stated

below, we affirm. 

 The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the District Court erred in granting 

the

City of Missoula's motion for summary judgment, and correspondingly denying

appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment and motion for reconsideration.

 FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

 On January 22, 1996, the City of Missoula adopted Municipal Annexation

Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818 pursuant to which it annexed land, commonly known

as the East Reserve area, located to the east of Reserve Street and west of preexisting

city limits. More specifically, Resolution 5816 annexed that portion of the East 

Reserve

area generally bounded by Brooks Street, Paxson Street, Reserve Street, and South

Avenue. Resolution 5817 incorporated within the City of Missoula's limits 

neighboring

land generally bounded by South Third Street West, South Avenue, Garfield Street, and

Reserve Street. Finally, Resolution 5818 annexed northern land generally bounded by

Mullan Road, Russell Street, South Third Street West, and Reserve Street. 

 Segments of Reserve Street, South Avenue, and South Third Street West, standing

in isolation from any other city property, thus border portions of the land annexed 

by

these resolutions. Indeed, in certain places, the perimeter surrounding the annexed 

land

is only as wide as the street itself. For example, a long stretch of Reserve Street,

annexed by the City of Missoula in 1993, bounds the western edge of land annexed by

Resolution 5818. Relying in part upon the narrow boundaries formed by these 

roadways,

the Missoula City Council adopted each of the three Resolutions at issue in the 

present

case pursuant to the "wholly surround" method of annexation as provided for by õ 7-2-

4501, MCA.

 On February 16, 1996, appellants filed suit to challenge the City of Missoula's 

use

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (2 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

of the "wholly surround" method of annexation in this case and to challenge the 

validity

of Municipal Annexation Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818. By way of their complaint,

appellants sought a preliminary injunction, a writ of mandate, a permanent 

injunction, and

a declaration by the court voiding Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818. On March 18,

1996, the City of Missoula filed a motion for summary judgment, which, except with

respect to the issue of notice, the court denied in an October 16, 1996, order. The 

court

determined the record contained insufficient facts upon which it could premise a 

grant of

summary judgment and, on that basis, additionally denied appellants' request for a

temporary injunction, writ of mandamus, and declaration voiding the annexation

Resolutions.

 The parties subsequently supplemented the record and filed cross-motions for

summary judgment, agreeing that the issues presented were ripe for determination as a

matter of law. On April 30, 1997, the District Court issued an order granting the 

City

of Missoula's motion for summary judgment, and denying appellants'. Appellants

accordingly filed a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied on June 16, 

1997. 

On June 20, 1997, appellants filed their notice of appeal from these two orders by 

the

District Court. 

 STANDARD OF REVIEW

 This Court's standard of review in appeals from summary judgment rulings is de

novo. Treichel v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. (1997), 280 Mont. 443, 446, 930 

P.2d

661, 663. (citing Motarie v. Northern Montana Joint Refuse Disposal Dist. (1995), 274

Mont. 239, 242, 907 P.2d 154, 156; Mead v. M.S.B., Inc. (1994), 264 Mont. 465, 470,

872 P.2d 782, 785). This Court reviews a summary judgment order entered pursuant to

Rule 56, M.R.Civ.P., based on the same criteria applied by the district court. 

Treichel,

280 Mont. at 446, 930 P.2d at 663 (citing Bruner v. Yellowstone County (1995), 272

Mont. 261, 264, 900 P.2d 901, 903).

 In proving that summary judgment is appropriate:

 The movant must demonstrate that no genuine issues of material fact exist. 

 Once this has been accomplished, the burden then shifts to the non-moving

 party to prove by more than mere denial and speculation that a genuine

 issue does exist. Having determined that genuine issues of material fact do

 not exist, the court must then determine whether the moving party is

 entitled to judgment as a matter of law. [This Court] reviews the legal

 determinations made by the district court as to whether the court erred. 

Bruner, 272 Mont. at 264-65, 900 P.2d at 903.

 Moreover, the "moving party has the burden of showing a complete absence of any

genuine issue as to all facts considered material in light of the substantive 

principles that

entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law and all reasonable 

inferences are

to be drawn in favor of the party opposing summary judgment." Kolar v. Bergo (1996),

280 Mont. 262, 266, 929 P.2d 867, 869. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (3 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

 DISCUSSION

 Did the District Court err in granting the City of Missoula's motion for summary

judgment, and correspondingly denying appellants' cross-motion for summary judgment?

 The Missoula City Counsel passed Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818 pursuant to

õ 7-2-4501, MCA, which provides for the annexation of wholly surrounded land. 

Specifically, õ 7-2-4501, MCA, provides that:

 A city may include as part of the city any platted or unplatted tract or

 parcel of land that is wholly surrounded by the city upon passing a

 resolution of intent, giving notice, and passing a resolution of annexation. 

 Except as provided in 7-2-4502, the provisions of 7-2-4312 through 7-2-

 4314 apply to these resolutions and the notice requirement. 

 

 Appellants argue those portions of the East Reserve area incorporated into

Missoula's city limits by Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818, were not, in fact, wholly

surrounded, and that the court accordingly erred in upholding the annexations. More

specifically, appellants argue the District Court erred in concluding that the City 

of

Missoula may annex a roadway as a contiguous parcel of land, and subsequently rely on

that roadway to wholly surround and annex additional tracts of land. We will address

each prong of the appellants' argument in turn. 

 A. Street corridor annexations

 As noted above, portions of Reserve Street, South Avenue, and South Third Street

West, standing alone, border portions of the land annexed by Resolutions 5816, 5817,

and 5818. The record indicates that, beginning in the early 1900s and ending in 

1993,

the City of Missoula annexed portions of Reserve Street, South Avenue, and South 

Third

Street West as contiguous parcels of land. Appellants argue that Montana law does 

not

authorize the annexation of a roadway as a contiguous parcel of land, and contend the

District Court erred in upholding the validity of these prior annexations.

 For the purposes of annexation, õ 7-2-4301, MCA, defines contiguous land as:

 Tracts or parcels of land proposed to be annexed to a city or town under the

 provisions of this part shall be deemed contiguous to such city or town even

 though such tracts or parcels of land may be separated from such city or

 town by a street or other roadway, irrigation ditch, drainage ditch, stream,

 river, or a strip of unplatted land too narrow or too small to be platted. 

 

 Appellants contend that a street or road, standing alone, does not constitute a 

tract

or parcel of land as contemplated by the provisions of õ 7-2-4301, MCA, and maintain

that a city may not annex a street or road unless it includes additional land in the 

area

annexed. Appellants also argue that, even if õ 7-2-4301, MCA, permits the annexation

of a roadway, a roadway is such a narrow strip of land that it cannot then be deemed

contiguous to a city or town. In particular, appellants take issue with Resolution 

5477,

adopted in 1993 and pursuant to which the City of Missoula annexed a long stretch of

Reserve Street. Appellants note that the only portions of Reserve Street abutting 

the City

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (4 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

of Missoula were the intersection properties at South Avenue, South Third Street, and

Mullan Road, and argue that Reserve Street was thus not contiguous to the City of

Missoula. 

 In response, the City of Missoula first argues appellants lack standing to 

challenge

the validity of the 1993 annexation of Reserve Street, as well as any other prior

annexations pursuant to which the City of Missoula incorporated portions of Reserve

Street, South Avenue, and South Third Street West. The City of Missoula notes that

appellants did not own property in any areas annexed prior to January 22, 1996, and 

thus

argues they lack standing to challenge those prior annexations. Even if appellants 

have

standing, the City of Missoula argues, a legitimate governmental purpose existed for 

the

street corridor annexations which it contends were both legal and valid.

 The City of Missoula first argues that appellants do not have standing to 

challenge

the various street corridor annexations which preceded the passage of Resolutions 

5816,

5817, and 5818. In its order on the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the

District Court declined to completely address the question of appellants' standing to

challenge the street corridor annexations which occurred prior to the 1996 passage of

Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818. In so doing, the court wrote that:

 First, the City of Missoula maintains that the Missoula Rural Fire District

 has no standing to challenge these prior annexations since it owns no real

 estate in the areas annexed. While this may or may not be true, the Court

 does not need to reach that decision, since no one has contested the standing

 of the other Plaintiffs.

 It is true that the City of Missoula contests the standing of the Missoula 

Rural Fire

District to challenge Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818, but does not contest the

remaining appellants' standing to do so. Thus, the District Court was correct in

concluding that it need not address the issue of standing with respect to the 

challenge to

these January 22, 1996, annexations. However, it is clear from the record that the 

City

of Missoula does indeed contest the standing of each and every appellant to challenge

street corridor annexations which occurred prior to January 22, 1996.

 For example, in its March 13, 1996, answer, with respect to Resolution 5477

pursuant to which the City of Missoula annexed portions of Reserve Street, the City 

of

Missoula explicitly asserts that: "Plaintiffs have no standing to challenge an 

August 23,

1993, municipal annexation that occurred more than two and one-half years ago and did

not involve property owned by plaintiffs."

 Thus, review of the record indicates the District Court was incorrect in 

concluding

that the City of Missoula has not contested the standing of all appellants to 

challenge

those annexations occurring prior to January 22, 1996. Although the District Court

improperly declined to address this question of standing, we note that the City of

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (5 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

Missoula has not appealed from the District Court's order. Thus, the issue of 

appellants'

standing to challenge those prior annexations is not properly before this Court on 

appeal

and we decline to address it. 

 Accordingly, without reaching the question of appellants' standing, we turn 

first

to the question of whether those street corridor annexations passed prior to January 

22,

1996, including Resolution 5477, pursuant to which the City of Missoula annexed a

roughly three-mile-long stretch of Reserve Street, are both legal and valid.

 As noted, appellants first argue that a road, such as Reserve Street, cannot

constitute a "tract or parcel" of land, as contemplated by õ 7-2-4301, MCA, and that 

a

city cannot annex a roadway without annexing additional land. Appellants argue that

neither õ 7-2-4301, MCA, nor any other statutory provision authorizes the City of

Missoula to annex a street or roadway, and that Resolution 5477, and any other street

corridor annexations, are accordingly invalid. 

 Although appellants apparently argue that a street simply cannot qualify as an

annexable "tract or parcel" of land pursuant to õ 7-2-4301, MCA, we conclude 

otherwise. 

Although not statutorily defined, a "tract" or "parcel" of land is commonly 

understood

to mean some area of land. A street is indisputably an area of land, however narrow 

or

long. Thus, the critical issue is not whether a street is annexable as a "tract or 

parcel"

of land, as contemplated by õ 7-2-4301, MCA, but whether a street can be considered

contiguous to other land for purposes of annexation pursuant to õ 7-2-4301, MCA. 

 Accordingly, we turn next to appellants' argument that, even if õ 7-2-4301, MCA,

permits the annexation of a roadway, a roadway is such a narrow strip of land that it

cannot then be deemed contiguous to a city or town for the purposes of annexation. 

Although appellants contest the City of Missoula's ability to annex any roadway as

contiguous land, they have narrowed the scope of their discussion to more 

specifically

contest the validity of Resolution 5477, enacted by the City of Missoula on August 

23,

1993, and pursuant to which it annexed a substantial stretch of Reserve Street.

 With respect to that segment of Reserve Street annexed by Resolution 5477,

appellants note that nearly a mile of platted property separates Missoula's western

boundary from Reserve Street's eastern edge. They further note that Reserve Street's

only contiguity with the City of Missoula existed at the intersection properties at 

South

Avenue, South Third Street, and Mullan Road, and argue that Reserve Street could thus

not be considered contiguous with the City of Missoula for purposes of 

annexation. 

 In response, the City of Missoula argues such street corridor annexations are 

valid,

particularly where enacted to serve a legitimate government purpose. The City of

Missoula argues it enacted Resolution 5477, and annexed portions of South Avenue and

South Third Street West, pursuant to just such a legitimate government purpose, and 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (6 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

that

those annexations are accordingly both legal and valid.

 As did the District Court, we note that those courts that have approved similar

street corridor annexations have done so most commonly where their respective state

legislatures have not specifically disapproved of the practice, and where the 

annexations

serve legitimate municipal or public needs. See, e.g., Taylor v. City of Chandler 

(Ariz.

Ct. App. 1972), 498 P.2d 158, 159 (approving annexation of strip of land 510 feet 

wide

and four and one-half miles long as contiguous); Board of County Commissioners of

Jefferson County v. City and County of Denver (Colo. Sup. Ct. 1977), 566 P.2d 335,

338-39 (permitting roadway annexation because such annexations not prohibited by the

legislature); Merritt v. City of Campbellsville (Ky. Ct. App. 1984), 678 S.W.2d 788, 

791

(approving annexation of corridor for water mains in municipal interest); Ridings v. 

City

of Ownsboro (Ky. Ct. App. 1964), 383 S.W.2d 510, 512 (recognizing that propriety of

"a corridor annexation depends upon whether the corridor itself has some municipal 

value

or serves some municipal purpose," and voiding annexation of two highways where no

such purpose existed); Village of Saranac Lake v. Gillispie (N.Y. App. Div. 1941), 

261

A.D. 854 (concluding tract of land one and one-half miles long and ten feet wide 

which

carried village sewer pipeline, adjoined the village, and approving its 

annexation). In

Ridings, the court held that a corridor will only be considered contiguous where "the

corridor or finger itself has a municipal value, i.e., unless it alone serves some 

municipal

purpose. Otherwise, the use of the corridor or finger must be considered a mere

subterfuge." Ridings, 383 S.W.2d at 512. 

 In the present case, the City of Missoula argues it had just such a legitimate

governmental purpose for annexing those portions of Reserve Street, South Avenue, and

South Third Street West at issue on appeal. For instance, the City of Missoula 

notes the

annexed streets each contained city sanitary sewer mains, and represents that the 

City of

Missoula had street maintenance contracts for these streets. 

 Furthermore, as the District Court noted, that portion of Reserve Street annexed

pursuant to Resolution 5477 paralleled pre-existing city limits, and connected the 

City at

the its north and south ends. Moreover, it touched pre-existing city limits at 

several

locations on its east and west sides. 

 We conclude that the existing geographical connections, in conjunction with the

City of Missoula's legitimate governmental interest in the annexations, renders the 

street

annexations at issue in the present case valid annexations of contiguous land 

pursuant to

õ 7-2-4301, MCA. 

B. Use of annexed roadway to wholly surround additional tracts of land 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (7 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM
97-473

 Appellants argue that, even if the City properly annexed the pertinent portions 

of

Reserve Street, South Avenue, and South Third Street West, it could not subsequently

rely on those annexed streets to wholly surround the additional tracts of land 

annexed by

Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818. Thus, appellants argue the District Court erred in

concluding Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818 were proper exercises of the City of

Missoula's power to annex wholly surrounded territory.

 Section 7-2-4501, MCA, provides that "[a] city may include as part of the city 

any

platted or unplatted tract or parcel of land that is wholly surrounded by the city 

upon

passing a resolution of intent, giving notice, and passing a resolution of 

annexation."

 Interpreting õ 7-2-4501, MCA, we have defined a "wholly surrounded" tract of

land as one "where all lands on the side of the tract are within the city and where 

it is

impossible to reach the tract without crossing such territory." Missoula Rural Fire 

Dist.

v. City of Missoula (Mont. 1997), 938 P.2d 1328, 1329-30, 54 St. Rep. 480, 481

(quoting Calvert v. City of Great Falls (1969), 154 Mont. 213, 218, 462 P.2d 182, 

184). 

 Having upheld the District Court's determination that the City properly annexed

those portions of Reserve Street, South Avenue, and South Third Street West which 

form

the perimeter around appellants' land, we similarly uphold the court's conclusion 

that

Resolutions 5816, 5817, and 5818 "were proper exercises of the City's power to annex

wholly surrounded territory." We conclude, as did the District Court, that "the 

territory

in question was wholly surrounded when it was annexed" because each side of the 

tracts

was within the City of Missoula, and because it was impossible to reach any of the 

tracts

without crossing City territory, however narrow.

 Based on the foregoing discussion, we uphold the District Court's order granting

the City of Missoula's motion for summary judgment and denying appellants' motion for

summary judgment and motion for reconsideration. 

 /S/ JIM REGNIER 

We Concur:

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/97-473%20Opinion.htm (8 of 8)4/17/2007 4:23:20 PM