08/12/2026
MT Supreme Court Opinion from Tuesday, August 4:
—————————
Shan and Dana Tompkins (the Tompkins) appeal from the District Court’s March 25, 2025 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order declaring that Christine Brock (Brock) holds an implied easement across their property and from several interlocutory orders. Brock cross-appeals the District Court’s June 19, 2025 procedural denial of her request for costs and attorney fees under § 25-7-105, MCA. We conclude that the District Court should have entered summary judgment for the Tompkins on Brock’s original express-easement theory, but that error did not affect their substantial rights after the court granted leave to amend and the parties fully litigated the amended claims. We affirm the order granting leave to amend, the denial of the later dispositive motions, and the bifurcation order. We reverse the implied-easement judgment and vacate the permanent injunction. We also vacate the mootness dismissal of Brock’s prescriptive easement claim, the Tompkins’ trespass counterclaim, and the extinguishment issues, and we remand any preserved alternative easement theory that the District Court did not adjudicate on the merits. We reverse the ruling that Brock’s request under §§ 25-7-105 and 25-10-501, MCA, was untimely and remand for further proceedings and a new cost-and-fee determination after final judgment.
We address the following issues:
1. Whether the District Court erred by denying summary judgment to the Tompkins on Brock’s original express-easement theory, whether that error requires reversal of the amended proceedings, and whether the court abused its discretion by granting Brock leave to amend.
2. Whether the District Court erred by denying the Tompkins’ motion for judgment on the pleadings and their later motion for partial summary judgment on Brock’s amended claims.
3. Whether the District Court abused its discretion by bifurcating the case and assigning Brock’s express-, implied-, and public-easement theories to the court while preserving the prescriptive-easement claim and trespass counterclaim for a jury.
4. Whether the District Court erred by concluding that Brock proved an implied easement by preexisting use benefiting both of her parcels.
5. Whether reversal of the implied-easement judgment requires vacatur of the permanent injunction and remand of the matters the District Court treated as moot.
6. Whether the District Court erred by treating its March 25, 2025 order as the decision triggering the five-day period under § 25-10-501, MCA, and by denying Brock’s request under § 25-7-105, MCA, as untimely.
https://juddocumentservice.mt.gov/getDocByCTrackId?DocId=578443
