Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/02/1996

Home

Page 2 --~ February 15, 1996 Z.B. SubdiviSion Owner Tries to Divide Land Before Subdivision Law Change~: NFCiPartners. v. Stanchfield Cattle Co., 905 P2d 1106 (Montana) 1995 Standhfield Cattle Co. owned land in Beaverhead County, Mont. It signed a timber ~. ales agreement with NFC Partners that gave NFC 45 days to buy the property On terms identical to any bona fide purchase offer Stanchfield received. Afterlsigning the agreement, Stanchfield took steps to divide part of the property, ilt hired a registered land surveyor to prepare a certificate of survey, which w~s one way to accomplish a "division of land" under the state Subdi- vision an~ Platting Act. Because all 19 proposed lots would be more than 20 acres, th{ plan was not a subdivision under the Act. (It defined subdivisions as "a division of land or land so divided which creates one or more parcels · containing less than 20 acres.") Therefore, Stanchfield did not have to create a formal Subdivision plat or go through subdivision review. Howe}Ver, Stanchfield knew the Legislature was considering changing the definitioni of a subdivision to include divisions of land that created parcels with 160iacres or less, rather than 20 or less. According to its surveyor, Stanchfie!d was concerned about filing the certificate of survey before the amendmept so it would not have to go through formal subdivision procedures. After the surveyor finished the survey, the certificate of survey was filed ~ . with the nCtat~on, "Property Corners will be set by July 1, 1993. Snow condi- tions pre~ent setting corners at this time." According to the surveyor, this was a common practice during the inclement winter months· However, under the state Department of Commerce's rules, certificates of survey could not be filed until !they showed all monuments set during the survey. The only excep- tion was fpr monuments the construction would disturb m they could be set after filing~ if the surveyor certified they would be set by a specific date. The surveyor physically set the internal monuments during March 1993. Changes to the subdivision statute became effective in April 1993. Prosp ~.~tive purchasers offered to buy some of the parcels shown on the certificate pf survey. Stanchfield notified NFC about the offerspursuant to the right of firjst refusal. NFC sijed Stanchfield and the purchasers, asking the court to declare the certificate iinvalid and prevent any sales. NFC also asked the court to order the countyiclerk not to record any instrument attempting to transfer any inter- est in the Properties. The court denied NFC's request. It held Stanchfield did not violate the Act (and tl!erefore have an invalid survey) by physically setting the property monument¢ after the certificate was filed. The court relied in part on the surveyor's~,statement that it was common practice among surveyors to set property m~>numents after filing a certificate when weather conditions were poor. NFC a~pealed. DECISION: Reversed and returned'to the trial court.