Property owners brought declaratory action challenging the denial of their second petition for de-annexation of their property.
The District Court granted city’s summary judgment motion, and property owners appealed.
The Supreme Court of Montana held that:
- Dismissal of property owners’ first declaratory action, in which they challenged city’s denial of their first petition for de-annexation of their property, constituted a final judgment for purposes of claim preclusion;
- Both of property owners’ declaratory actions involved the same subject matter for purposes of claim preclusion;
- Both of property owners’ declaratory actions involved the same issue and subject matter for purposes of claim preclusion; and
- Termination of an interlocal agreement between city and county did not constitute a material fact for purposes of claim preclusion or summary judgment.
Dismissal of property owners’ first declaratory action, in which they challenged city’s denial of their first petition for de-annexation of their property, constituted a final judgment for purposes of claim preclusion. The trial court dismissed the action with prejudice on the basis of the running of the statute of limitations.
Two declaratory actions brought by property owners against city, in which they challenged city’s denial of their petitions for de-annexation of their property, involved the same subject matter for purposes of claim preclusion. The complaints arose from the city’s denial of property owners’ petitions for exclusion, and both of the declaratory complaints had the same basic factual underpinnings, property owners’ voluntary petition for annexation, city’s annexation, property owners’ decision not to pay for extension of services to their property, their petition for exclusion, and the denial of the petition.
Two declaratory actions brought by property owners against city, in which they challenged city’s denial of their petitions for de-annexation of their property, involved the same issue and subject matter for purposes of claim preclusion. The gravamen of both complaints was that the city failed to follow the requirements of statute that governed the process of excluding land from a municipality, and any additional claims in each of the two declaratory complaints were directly premised on that initial claim.
Termination of an interlocal agreement between city and county, which property owners alleged caused their property to become “an island” of city property surrounded by land under county jurisdiction, did not constitute a material fact for purposes of either claim preclusion’s issue similarity requirement or summary judgment, as applied to property owners’ second declaratory action challenging city’s denial of a petition for de-annexation of their property. Since the time property owners’ property was annexed, the jurisdiction of the city over the property has not changed, and on each occasion when property owners sought de-annexation, city expressed its continuing objective to annex the area in which the property was located.