Opinion ID: 888661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Whether the District Court applied the appropriate standard of review in ruling on the parties' motions for summary judgment?

Text: ¶ 28 Richards argues that the District Court improperly applied an abuse of discretion standard in granting FWP and the County judgment as a matter of law. Section 76-3-625, MCA, requires the District Court, and this Court, to review the existing record to determine if the County acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully. Madison River R.V. Ltd. v. Town of Ennis, 2000 MT 15, ¶ 30, 298 Mont. 91, 994 P.2d 1098. ¶ 29 Richards argues that the court never determined the absence of any genuine issues of fact, and addressed only whether the Board acted arbitrarily or capriciously. Any order of a court granting a motion under M.R. Civ. P. 56 shall specify the grounds thereof with sufficient particularity as to apprise the parties and the appellate court of the rationale underlying the ruling. M.R. Civ. P. 52(a). M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) does not require a district court to state explicitly that no genuine issues of material fact exist. M.R. Civ. P. 52(a) requires a district court to provide a rationale underlying its decision. ¶ 30 The District Court provided a wealth of reasoning for its decision. The court reviewed the Board's findings of facts and conclusions of law and the entire public record. The court noted that clear and convincing evidence supported the Board's decision to deny Richards's proposal. The overwhelming evidence and absence of disputed fact entitled FWP and the County to summary judgment. ¶ 31 The District Court correctly reviewed the existing record to determine whether the Board had acted arbitrarily, capriciously, or unlawfully in denying Richards's application. This Court's decisions in Kiely and Madison R.V. require nothing more. Our review confirms that the District Court applied the correct summary judgment standard.