by Michael Howell
Montana Supreme Court Justice James Jeremiah Shea issued an order on January 27, 2026 reversing and remanding for further proceedings Ravalli County District Court Judge Jennifer Lint’s decision to dismiss a case involving a family land transfer.
The Sapphire Coalition, a local non-profit organization, filed the lawsuit in August of 2024 alleging that the Planning Department unlawfully approved a Subdivision Exemption Application because it did not provide public notice. The Coalition also alleged the Planning Department’s approval violated the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (MSPA), Montana Public Participation Act (MPPA), and the right to know and right to participate guaranteed by the Montana Constitution. The Coalition claimed at the time that they were not opposed to family transfers but were opposed to their being used to evade the subdivision process.
The 80-acre parcel of land at issue was originally owned by Gary Chilcott, of Deer Lodge, brother of Ravalli County Commissioner Greg Chilcott, and had been included as part of a proposed 280-acre multi-phase subdivision in the Hamilton Heights area. That subdivision proposal was withdrawn during the Planning Board review process.
After the subdivision application was withdrawn, Chilcott sold the 80-acre property to his son, Lance Albert of Alaska. On January 13, 2020, Albert submitted a Subdivision Exemption Application to the Planning Department that proposed dividing the 80-acre tract of land into eight 10-acre parcels through a family transfer exemption identifying his five minor children, wife and father (Gary), as transfer recipients. The Planning Department approved Albert’s application nine working days later, on January 24, 2020, without providing public notice before approving it.
It was not until the spring of 2023 that a member of the Sapphire Coalition, while researching a neighboring tract slated to undergo subdivision review, discovered that the property had been subdivided. The coalition gathered information from the County regarding Albert’s exemption and presented its concern that Albert used the family transfer exemption to evade the subdivision requirements of the MSPA, but the County declined to reanalyze the application.
That’s when the Coalition decided to file suit against the County, Ravalli County Commission, Ravalli County Attorney’s Office, and the Planning Department over failure to provide public notice.
Lint dismissed the suit in January 2025, stating that the Coalition did not plead a plausible claim because the County Regulations “do not require published notice of . . . the review of proposed subdivision exemptions,” and the Coalition appealed the ruling.
In its ruling reversing that decision, the Supreme Court noted that the law requires governing bodies to assess whether an exemption is being used to circumvent the subdivision law. The Court also noted that County Regulations state, “The applicant and the public shall be permitted to comment on the proposal and rebut any presumptions that the use of the exemption evades the MSPA or these regulations.”
The County Regulations have undergone three amendments relevant to the public participation required during the exemption application process. The pre-2006 County Regulations did not require the Planning Department to receive public comments or hold a public meeting as part of the exemption application process. The County amended the Regulations in 2006 to add provisions that required the Planning Department to receive public comments and hold a public meeting. But in 2012 they amended them to remove the public hearing requirement but retained the Planning Department’s obligation to receive public comments.
The County contends that removing the public hearing requirement in 2012 demonstrates public notice is not required. The Sapphire Coalition argues the plain language of the regulations requires the Planning Department to provide public notice to effectuate the opportunity to comment.
The Supreme Court found that, “the County amendment removed the Planning Department’s obligation to hold a public meeting. But it did not eliminate the separate and independent guarantee that the public shall be permitted to comment on the proposal.”
The Supreme Court determined that the public comment requirement demonstrates that the County intended to provide the public with an opportunity to participate in the application process. The Court declared that although the County Regulations are silent as to whether the Planning Department must provide public notice, the opportunity to comment provided by the County Regulations is meaningless unless the public receives notice of a pending application.
“The County’s interpretation that the Planning Department can evaluate an exemption application without providing any public notice at all would lead to an absurd result. It is axiomatic that the public cannot comment on something the public does not know about,” wrote Shea.
The Supreme Court declared that because Sapphire and the County do not dispute that the Planning Department failed to provide public notice, the District Court must remand Albert’s Subdivision Exemption Application to the Planning Department for it to reevaluate the Subdivision Exemption Application after providing public notice that effectuates an adequate opportunity to comment on Albert’s application.
Tracy says
This is somewhat amusing