Montana’s Largest Land Grab?

Luxan and Murfitt, Attorneys for Saint Marie Condominium Association are in the process of claiming 223 acres from owners of Units in North Valley County Condominium Association, claiming that what Unit Owners in North Valley have “were the interior spaces of buildings whose exterior is owned by unit owners of the St. Marie Condominium, on land and surrounded by land that is owned by unit owners of St. Marie Condominium.”  If they were to prevail, it would be a crippling rip-off and waste of conservatively seven and one half million dollars value.  Air space without common elements is not a marketable nor taxable real estate.  (70-13-101).

The 14^th Amendment to the St. Marie Condominium Declaration brought the total number of Units to one thousand.  Each of the Units owned an undivided interest in the 298 acres being a little more than a quarter of an acre for the average share of undivided ownership.

The Declarant had more bills than cash and went into bankruptcy. The Federal Judge turned all the remaining assets to “Valley Park Liquidating Trust” whose plan required withdrawing 750 units, which they owned, from the Parent St. Marie Condominium, which they did.  They had the original Declarant’s right to do as they wished with the 750 Units within the Covenants and the Montana Unit Ownership Act.  They had power of attorney for all 1000 units so could make new declarations on their own or as approved and suggested (ordered) by the Federal Judge.

One universal rule of unit-common ownership and also Montana law is that the common elements are permanently attached and appurtenant (70-15-105) to the units unless a series of steps are put in place which requires 100% (75% by St. Marie Declaration) approval of the Unit Owners.  One can not accidentally leave common elements behind when describing units by the established Unit numbers. Common elements are appurtenant and come with or “shifted” with the unit even if not specifically called for in the deed. (70-23-404). The Seventeenth Amendment saw the Liquidating Trust withdrawing 750 units by using the St. Marie Condominium Unit numbers as a legal description.

Luxan and Murfitt apparently have not prepared any condo declarations as they got hung up on the fact that all 17 versions of the St. Marie Condominium percentages of unit ownership always totaled up to 100% as proof of their client’s ownership. Little wonder when you start with 100% and divide by the number of units, or as in this case by the floor space of individual units to arrive at unit percentage which when totaled always add up to 100%. This is how all percentage of ownership is computed for common ownership.  I might add that most fifth graders could solve this word problem.

Luxan and Murfitt interpreted this to mean that St. Marie Condominium Unit owners owned 100% of the common elements not only appurtenant to their 250 units but also the 750 withdrawn units with the same genesis. Can advocacy based on a false premise be allowed to stand? – I hope not. Most of their July 24 memo consists of a partial quoting of Montana Condominium law, as suited their client, and advancing their theory of ownership of the common elements based on their false premise.

One should ask “percentage of what”? The true answer is the remainder after three fourths of the appurtenant common elements shifted with the 750 Units.  The remainder is approximately 74.5 acres.  This amounts to the same undivided one quarter acre, plus, for each of the remaining 250 lots.  This is the same share of the total area each Saint Marie Unit Owner started with before the shifting of the 750 units.  Seems fair enough and I suspect, if St. Marie Unit Owners fully understood, would agree.

Luxan and Murfitt can not explain how the shifting of the Units without their share of common elements could have been accomplished in the light of (70-23-404) nor with the Federal Judge whose main task was to preserve and optimize the value of the assets to be fairly divided among creditors. Neither the Judge nor the Trust would have let seven and one half million dollars of assets slip out the door.  I can not imagine what Saint Marie intends to do with the misappropriated common elements unless they intend to extort payment from the owners for reuniting it with their air space.  I can’t think for a minute that the good owners of Units in Saint Marie Condominium would want this.

Luxan and Murfitt lawyers are too clever not to already know all of this and one must conclude that they have deliberately misconstrued the truth. The direct result of this over zealous advocacy for their client is the “wasting” of the North Valley Unit Owners property values.  Such wasting in Montana is punishable by “Triple Damages.” (70-16-106)

One may hope that this absurdity won’t get far in the court system. The real solution is jointly defining the “hop scotch” like boundary between St. Marie and North Valley Condominiums.  This boundary exists in the record and can be located on the ground.  One need only look at the St. Marie grass cutting pattern to know approximately what it would look like.  Robert Frost observed that “Good fences (or boundaries) make good neighbors”.  Both parties need to agree on where and how this boundary will be marked: If not we will continue as in the past with extended legal action ad infinite.

This is my professional opinion, however I do own two units in North Valley and two in Saint Marie.

Robert J. Shelton PE, LS

P.S.

One member of the press has asked who put me in charge. I am not in charge and I am my only client in this matter. However, I am concerned with bad property descriptions and poor title that makes me stay awake at night.  My expertise has come after 52 years practice as a professional engineer and land surveyor.  What is a land surveyor?  This is best illustrated by the first paragraph of my departed Mentor, Ira “Tiny Tilotson.”  His book’s “Legal Principles of Boundary Location on the Ground in the Public Land Survey States”, first paragraph reads as follows:

“The surveyor is supposed to make his survey in such a manner that a court will uphold his judgment and actions. This means he must place the Boundary Line between abutting owners in exactly the same place whether he is paid by owner “A” or owner “B”. In this sense a surveyor is actually a court.  A court which doesn’t know the law in its own field is an utter futility.”

Thus through the years I have learned a lot of property law and need not apologize for this knowledge.

A surveyor is not an advocate and is considered to be a professional in that we bring owners together in agreement instead of suing each other as the advocating lawyer is wont to do.

Reference Luxan & Murfitt July 24, 2014, memo to et alia, Re. Ownership interest of Members of St. Marie Condominium Association.

                              _________

70-15-101. Real property defined. Real or immovable property consists of:       (1) land;       (2) that which is affixed to land;       (3) that which is incidental or appurtenant to land;       (4) that which is immovable by law.

History: En. Sec. 1074, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 4425, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 6667, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 658; Based on Field Civ. C. Sec. 163; re-en. Sec. 6667, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 67-207.

_______________

70-15-105. Incident or appurtenance defined. A thing is deemed to be incidental or appurtenant to land when it is by right used with the land for its benefit, as in the case of a way or watercourse or of a passage for light, air, or heat from or across the land of another.

History: En. Sec. 1078, Civ. C. 1895; re-en. Sec. 4429, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 6671, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. Civ. C. Sec. 662; Field Civ. C. Sec. 166; re-en. Sec. 6671, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 67-211.

__________________

70-23-404 : Common elements — undivided interest to remain attached to unit

The undivided interest in the common elements shall not be separated from the unit to which it appertains and shall be conveyed or encumbered with the unit even though such interest is not expressly mentioned or described in the conveyance or other instrument.

History: En. Sec. 7, Ch. 120, L. 1965; R.C.M. 1947,

___________________

70-16-106. Action for waste — treble damages. If a guardian, tenant for life or years, joint tenant, or tenant in common of real property commits waste of the property, any person aggrieved by the waste may bring an action against that person. The judgment in the action may be for treble damages.

History: En. Sec. 229, p. 91, Bannack Stat.; re-en. Sec. 250, p. 187, L. 1867; re-en. Sec. 299, p. 93, Cod. Stat. 1871; re-en. Sec. 350, p. 137, L. 1877; re-en. Sec. 350, 1st Div. Rev. Stat. 1879; re-en. Sec. 362, 1st Div. Comp. Stat. 1887; re-en. Sec. 1301, C. Civ. Proc. 1895; re-en. Sec. 6866, Rev. C. 1907; re-en. Sec. 9475, R.C.M. 1921; Cal. C. Civ. Proc. Sec. 732; re-en. Sec. 9475, R.C.M. 1935; R.C.M. 1947, 93-6102; amd. Sec. 2119, Ch. 56, L. 2009.

 

 

 

 

Covenant Owners Meeting – July 26th

10:30 A. M.  in St. Marie Chapel

The purpose of this meeting was 1) to make the members of the community familiar with the meaning of the Protective Covenants and how they can be used to protect their property and 2) to explain some possible changes that should be adopted.

The meeting was conducted by Ron Frantz.  He started out by emphasizing how  important it is to all owners of property in St. Marie to become knowledgable of the meaning and contents of the Protective Covenants of the Village of St. Marie.  He then covered each item in the 1988 Protective Covenants in great detail and explained the necessity of some possible changes that should be adopted.

You can read the proposed amendments that were explained at the meeting by clicking “Proposed Amendments” at the top of this page.  The proposed additions to the 1988 Protective Covenants are in red and the proposed deletions have a line drawn through them.

There is still time to send us comments on any additions or deletions that you might think appropriate.   Just click “Leave a reply” at the top of the page and leave your suggestions in the box that says “Enter your comment here.”

Thank you!

Meeting and Potluck

To the residents of St. Marie and all interested parties:

There will be a covenant owners’ meeting to offer amendments to the Protective Covenants of the Village of St. Marie, established in 1988 for the benefit of all.

Meeting date: Saturday, July 26, 2014

Time: 10:30 A.M.

Place: St. Marie Chapel

A potluck will follow.  Share a dish and join in!

 

 

 

 

 

Dealing with breaking the covenants

One thing in the proposed amended Protective Covenants that has brought the most response from the community is the $1000 maximum fine for violations (See section 9, paragraph D.)  The maximum fine as it stands today, under the 1988 Protective Covenants, is $5000.  We reduced it to $1000 because we thought that $5000 was excessive, but there are people in the community who think that $1000 is excessive.

It is essential that the community be able to protect itself from people who want to park junk cars around and create public nuisances that have a negative impact on the community.

To avoid excessive litigation and the added expense, it has been suggested that instead of using the courts, we would have a board of binding arbitration.  If we have good people on the board, representing a cross membership of the community, it should work out OK. But even a board of arbitration can be partial, so we could possibly bring some issues down (probably the most expensive fines) to an appeal process involving the community.  Now this is not a well-thought out process, but if implemented correctly, it could truly serve the needs of the community and maintain a high level of fairness.

For those of you who think the fines are excessive, please send us your comments and suggestions.

UNIFORM COMMON INTEREST OWNERS BILL OF RIGHTS ACT drafted by the NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS and by it APPROVED AND RECOMMENDED FOR ENACTMENT IN ALL THE STATES at its ANNUAL CONFERENCE MEETING IN ITS ONE-HUNDRED-AND-SEVENTEENTH YEAR BIG SKY, MONTANA July 18 – July 25, 2008

The Protective Covenants of the Village of St. Marie have always protected the unit owner’s right to vote.  Likewise, the  Uniform Common Interest Owners Bill of Rights Act, drafted in Big Sky, Montana, protects  the unit owner’s right to vote. You can read the entire Bill of Rights by clicking here, but the parts quoted below are the most relevant to St. Marie:

COPYRIGHT  2008 by NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS 

SECTION 8. POWERS AND DUTIES OF UNIT OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

(a) Regardless of the powers and duties of the association described in the declaration and bylaws, the association:

 (6) may suspend any right or privilege of a unit owner that fails to pay an assessment, but may not:

(A) deny a unit owner or other occupant access to the owner’s unit;

(B) suspend a unit owner’s right to vote;

(C) prevent a unit owner from seeking election as a director or officer of the association; or

(D) withhold services provided to a unit or a unit owner by the association if the effect of withholding the service would be to endanger the health, safety, or property of any person; and

SECTION 9. EXECUTIVE BOARD MEMBERS AND OFFICERS. 

 (c) The executive board may not:

 (2) amend the bylaws;

 (5) determine the qualifications, powers, duties, or terms of office of executive board members.

SECTION 19. REMOVAL OF OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS. 

(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the declaration or bylaws to the contrary, unit owners present in person, by proxy, or by absentee ballot at any meeting of the unit owners at which a quorum is present, may remove any member of the executive board and any officer elected by the unit owners, with or without cause, if the number of votes cast in favor of removal exceeds the number of votes cast in opposition to removal.

/blockquote>

Open for Discussion

        Two hundred and fifty copies of the proposed Amended and Restated Protective Covenants for the Village of Saint Marie have been handed out to almost everyone in St. Marie Village.  A meeting to discuss the new Protective Covenants was held at the St. Marie Chapel on May 17, 2014 at 10:00 A.M.

        All owners of units or property in the Village of St. Marie who are looking for a brighter future currently have the opportunity to provide their input in crafting this important document and are encouraged to do so.  Please take the time and effort to make comments, additions or deletions to the proposed Amended and Restated Protective Covenants.

        Comments can be posted on this blog or sent by email to covenantowners@gmail.com . After ample time for discussion and gathering of comments, the proposed Amended and Restated Protective Covenants will be revised, reprinted, and reposted on this website.