Opinion ID: 882798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: failure to grant exemption

Text: The annexation by the City was conducted under §§ 7-2-4501, et seq., MCA, which allow a city to annex wholly surrounded land. Kudloff claims that his constitutional rights were violated when the defendants annexed his real property without granting him a statutory exemption under this part. Kudloff bases this assertion on § 7-2-4503, MCA, which states: Land shall not be annexed under this part whenever the land is used: ... (2) for the purpose of maintaining or operating ... a place for public or private outdoor entertainment or any purpose incident thereto. Fatal to Kudloff's argument is the fact that Kudloff was not maintaining or operating a ski area or any place of public or private outdoor entertainment. Over a period of years, Kudloff had taken some steps to develop a ski area; however, he was far from completing his project, and was certainly not maintaining or operating such an area. Therefore, this statutory exemption is not available to Kudloff, and his claim of a constitutional violation based upon this statute is also without merit.