Opinion ID: 887222
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Whether the District Court's findings of fact are sufficient to support the imposition of building restrictions.

Text: ¶ 16 Even assuming that the court has the equitable power to impose building restrictions, Kellogg contends that the court's findings of fact are insufficient to support such restrictions. The no build zones of this case are different from the servitudes in the above-cited partition cases because they have been imposed on both parties. This is permissible so long as the court imposes the servitudes in order to equitably divide the property. See above discussion of § 70-29-209, MCA. However, Kellogg argues that the Referees recommended the no build zones, not in order to equitably divide the property, but for the purpose of alleviating acrimony between neighbors. He contends that such a purpose is outside of the court's equitable powers in a partition action and is thus illegitimate. ¶ 17 Although Kellogg is correct in arguing that the Referees relied, in part, on the rationale of alleviating neighborly tension, that was not the Referees' only stated reason for recommending the no build zones. As mentioned earlier, another reason was to reduce the need for any new permanent service roads. Given the swiss cheese nature of the tenancy and neighboring properties, there is already a large problem in the Joslin Basin with accommodating every structure with vehicular access. The Referees were obviously addressing the concern that either Kellogg or Dearborn would sell some of the land on the meadow separating their homes and that the new owners would then build structures on that land and seek access through Dearborn's and/or Kellogg's property. In order to head-off such a demand for future easements, the Referees thought it wise to ban future building on these areas of land. [1] With the ban in place, the division of the properties is more equitable because there will be less demand for new disruptive service roads. The Referees' recommendation, adopted by the District Court, adheres to the ordinary principles of equity referenced in § 70-29-209, MCA. ¶ 18 We conclude that the court's imposition of the no build zone is supported by the Referees' recommendations as adopted by the District Court and the resulting concern with reducing the need for new permanent service roads as well as the concern with reducing potential friction between the litigants.