High court sides with county in zoning dispute

The Montana Supreme Court Tuesday affirmed a decision issued by Flathead District Judge Stewart Stadler related to litigation between the county and two Bigfork developers.

Mike Touris and Chuck Sneed had appealed Stadler’s summary judgment in favor of the county, the county planning board, the county commissioners, the planning office and the Bigfork land use advisory committee.

The two men had sued those entities in connection with their request for a zone change.

Chief Justice Mike McGrath wrote the court’s opinion.

In laying out the background for the Supreme Court’s decision, McGrath summarized the district court activity.

On Feb. 14, 2008, the Flathead County Board of Commissioners denied a request by Sneed and Touris for a zone change. Sneed and Touris filed a petition for judicial review of that decision on March 7, 2008. They argued that the county commissioners’ decision was based on “errant findings of fact, was contrary to the stated opinion of one commissioner” and that the former planning director had misled the commissioners.

Because of those factors, the plaintiffs alleged that the commissioners’ decision was “made upon unlawful procedure; affected by errors of law;” and was “arbitrary and capricious and characterized by an abuse of discretion or a clearly unwarranted exercise of discretion.”

In response to the request for judicial review, the county asked for summary judgment on April 2, 2008.

The plaintiffs responded through their attorney, Noah Bodman of the Fisher Law Firm, that the commissioners’ decision violated their rights to equal protection and due process.

On April 14, 2009, the plaintiffs asked the district court judge to dismiss their lawsuit, with prejudice. The court granted that motion on April 21, 2009.

However, on March 14, 2008, the plaintiffs had filed a second lawsuit, Touris 2, which McGrath said “set forth a factual scenario identical to Touris 1, save for minor changes in paragraph structure and language.”

The two developers again alleged that the Bigfork land use advisory committee, the planning board, the county commissioners and the planning office violated due process and their right to equal protection, were negligent and that the county failed to adequately train and supervise employees and board members.

The county filed a motion to dismiss Touris 2 on April 3, 2008, and on Jan. 13, 2009, the court dismissed some of the counts, but left in place the simple negligence counts, equal protection claims and the failure-to-train count.

On Dec. 1, 2009, the county amended its answer to include a defense of res judicata, which was granted by the district court on Feb. 9, 2010.

Bodman questioned the res judicata defense. Essentially, res judicata means a court has decided the issue. Bodman raised the issue of whether the District Court correctly concluded res judicata, or claim preclusion, and whether the county waived that as a defense.

McGrath said res judicata bars re-litigation of a claim that a party has already had the opportunity to litigate. And, the justice pointed out that “central to res judicata is the concept of finality; litigation must, at some point, come to an end.” 

The county moved for summary judgment on the remaining counts of Touris 2 on Feb. 26, 2010, asserting that Touris 2 was barred by res judicata. The district court dismissed the case on Oct. 4, 2010. That second dismissal was the impetus for the appeal to the Supreme Court.

The plaintiffs challenged whether Touris 1 was a final judgment on the merits, and whether the subject matter and issues of the two lawsuits was the same.

The Supreme Court said Touris 1 was a final judgment on the merits for purposes of res judicata because it dismissed that action with prejudice. “Voluntary dismissal of an action with prejudice constitutes a final judgment on the merits,” McGrath said.

The justice also wrote that the subject matter of the two lawsuits “is identical.” At the heart of both “is the validity of the decision” by the Flathead County commissioners to deny Touris’ request for a zone change, the decision states.

And, it states, all of the claims in the second lawsuit were litigated in the first.

“A plaintiff cannot continually seek re-litigation of issues under the guise of ‘claim-splitting,’” the decision states. To accept that position, McGrath said, would “frustrate a purpose of res judicata,” that of protecting defendants from repetitive lawsuits, “and instead encourage a veritable whack-a-mole of contemporaneously-filed duplicative lawsuits based upon identical claims.”

Deputy Flathead County Attorney Paul Nicol said the ruling may have significance down the road as far as refining the legal theory of res judicata, but the ruling won’t have tremendous influence on the day-to-day lives of Flathead County residents.

Reporter Shelley Ridenour may be reached at 758-4439 or sridenour@dailyinterlake.com