STATE EX REL REGION II CHILD FAMI
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
79-101 I N THE SUPREME COURT O F THE S T A T E O F MONTANA 1980 T H E S T A T E O F MONTANA ex r e l . , R E G I O N I1 C H I L D AND FAMILY S E R V I C E S , I N C . , and S T A T E O F MONTANA, e t a l . , Relators, VS. T H E D I S T R I C T COURT O F THE E I G H T H JUDICIAL DISTRICT e t al., Respondents. O R I G I N A L PROCEEDING : C o u n s e l of R e c o r d : For R e l a t o r s : R i c h a r d G a n u l i n and W i l l i a m H u t c h i s o n , M o n t a n a L e g a l Services, G r e a t F a l l s , M o n t a n a C a t h e r i n e S w i f t , S.R.S., Helena, Montana For R e s p o n d e n t s : J a r d i n e , S t e p h e n s o n , B l e w e t t and Weaver, G r e a t F a l l s , Montana For A m i c u s C u r i a e : James Reynolds, Helena, Montana Submitted: Decided: January 25, 1 9 8 0 JAN 2 8 1989 Mr. Justice John Conway Harrison delivered the Opinion of the Court. This petition was filed seeking a writ of supervisory control and other appropriate relief in a cause where the District Court had issued an injunction pendente lite enjoin the relators from establishing a community residential home for developmentally disabled children. The District Court held that the community home violated restrictive covenants limiting the use of the property to single family dwellings. This Court on December 20, 1979 ordered the parties to the cause to file briefs within twenty days, together with supporting memoranda, and stayed further proceedings pend- ing the receipt of said briefs and memoranda. In addition, permission was granted for an amicus brief by the Developmental Disabilities/Montana Advocacy Program. All parties having filed briefs within the time specified, this Court accepts jurisdiction of the cause and considers the issues raised on briefs without oral argument. The relator, Region 11, purchased a home in the Sunrise Homes Subdivision of Great Falls, Montana. It was relator's intention to use the home as a residence for five developmentally disabled children. The children were selected for placement in this home on the basis of their immediate need for a less restrictive environment, current inappropriate placement, and developmental retardation due to their current placement. individual circumstances were set forth in the application for the writ. The children were to reside in the home with fulltime, paid houseparents and would be taught various personal hygiene and domestic skills in the home. The children were heir a l s o t o a t t e n d t h e G r e a t F a l l s p u b l i c s c h o o l s i n t h e day- time. The l a n d o w n e r s who a r e r e s p o n d e n t s h e r e i n o b j e c t e d b o t h t o t h e u s e o f t h e home a s a g r o u p home f o r t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y d i s a b l e d and t o a g r o u p o f u n r e l a t e d i n d i v i d u a l s r e s i d i n g i n one house i n t h e Subdivision. Their o b j e c t i o n s w e r e premised on t h e S u b d i v i s i o n ' s p r o t e c t i v e c o v e n a n t s . In their petition, t h e r e l a t o r s n o t e d t h a t t h e y had already incurred s u b s t a n t i a l c o s t s i n purchasing t h e property and p a y i n g f o r i t s upkeep and monthly f i n a n c i n g . Relators a l s o a l l e g e d t h a t t h e y s t a n d t o l o s e income and g r a n t s which a r e d e p e n d e n t upon t h e immediate u s e o f t h e home a s a g r o u p home. R e l a t o r s noted t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n n o t only has prev e n t e d Region 1 1 ' s u s e o f a home and t h e movement o f f i v e c h i l d r e n t o t h e home, b u t i t h a s a l s o p r e v e n t e d t h e movement o f c h i l d r e n i n a more r e s t r i c t i v e e n v i r o n m e n t , s u c h a s B o u l d e r R i v e r S c h o o l , i n t o t h e community p l a c e m e n t which would b e v a c a t e d by movement o f t h e f i v e c h i l d r e n i n t o t h e S u b d i v i s i o n g r o u p home. Respondent l a n d o w n e r s have n e i t h e r a l l e g e d n o r t e s t i f i e d a s t o a n y s p e c i f i c damages t h a t t h e y m i g h t s u f f e r i f t h e home w e r e u s e d a s a g r o u p home. They r e l y e n t i r e l y upon t h e p r o t e c t i v e covenants of t h e i r deeds t h a t s t a t e t h a t t h e homes i n t h e a r e a s h a l l b e composed o f "one u n i t s i n g l e family dwellings. I' W e f i n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t Court improperly issued an i n j u n c t i o n -e n d e n t e l i t e on t h e b a s i s o f M o n t a n a ' s c o n s t i t u t i o n , p s t a t u t e s , and c a s e l a w . M o n t a n a ' s 1972 C o n s t i t u t i o n p r o v i d e s : "The l e g i s l a t u r e s h a l l p r o v i d e s u c h economic a s s i s t a n c e and s o c i a l and re- habilitative services as may be necessary for those inhabitants who, by reason of age, infirmities, or misfortune, may have a need for the aid of society." Article XII, section Pursuant to this constitutional mandate, the Montana Legislature passed legislation implementing care for the needs of its developmentally disabled citizens at a community level rather than in institutions. Section 53-20-301, MCA provides : "PURPOSE. The legislature, in recognition of the widespread and various needs of developmentally disabled persons and of the desirability of meeting these needs on the community level to the fullest extent possible and in order to reduce the need for care in existing state institutions, establishes by this part a community developmentally disabled home program to provide facilities and services for training and treatment of the developmentally disabled in family-oriented residences and establishes a program to provide such homes through the local nonprofit corporations." To insure the residential nature of the facility, and to protect the residential nature of the neighborhood, the legislature in section 53-20-302, MCA limited the size of the community homes." That section provides: "Definition of community home -- limitation on number of residents. A community home for the developmentally disabled is a familyoriented residence or home designed to provide facilities for two to eight developmentally disabled persons, established as an alternative to existing state institutions. The number of developmentally disabled persons may not exceed eight in such a community home, except that the department of social and rehabilitation services may grant written approval for more than eight but not more than twelve persons." Section 53-20-302, MCA. Anticipating local opposition to the implementation of these statutes, the legislature amended Montana's laws relating to zoning by mandating that all community homes be permitted use in residential neighborhoods, including neighborhoods zoned f o r s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n c e s . 2-314, S e c t i o n s 76-2-313, 76- I t s h o u l d b e n o t e d t h a t s u b s e c t i o n 2 of 76-2- MCA. 314 s t a t e s : "The homes a r e a p e r m i t t e d u s e i n a l l r e s i d e n t i a l z o n e s , i n c l u d i n g b u t n o t l i m i t e d t o r e s i d e n t i a l zones f o r single-family dwellings." T h i s Court i n S t a t e e x r e l . Thelen v. Missoula (1975), 168 Mont. 375, 543 P.2d 1 7 3 i n t e r p r e t e d t h e a b o v e - c i t e d s e c t i o n s t o p e r m i t t h e o p e r a t i o n o f c o n f o r m i n g g r o u p homes i n r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a s i n Montana. There we noted: "Montana's l e g i s l a t u r e having determined t h a t t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s o f t h e development a l l y d i s a b l e d t o l i v e and d e v e l o p w i t h i n o u r community s t r u c t u r e a s a f a m i l y u n i t , r a t h e r t h a n t h a t they be s e g r e g a t e d i n i s o l a t e d i n s t i t u t i o n s , i s paramount t o t h e z o n i n g r e g u l a t i o n s o f a n y c i t y i t becomes o u r d u t y t o r e c o g n i z e and implement s u c h l e g i s l a t i v e action. ". . . t h e Montana l e g i s l a t u r e a d o p t e d a new p o l i c y a s a p p l i e d t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y d i s a b l e d i n a n e f f o r t t o implement a new c o n s t i t u t i o n a l mandate, and i n s o d o i n g it was f u r t h e r i n g a p e r m i s s i b l e s t a t e o b j e c t i v e . " T h e l e n , s u p r a , 168 Mont. 382-383, 543 P.2d a t 177-178. Thelen d e a l t w i t h zoning r e s t r i c t i o n s r a t h e r than w i t h r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. W e recognize t h a t t h e r e i s a u t h o r i t y f o r t h e s t a t e m e n t t h a t zoning ordinances cannot d e s t r o y , i m p a i r , a b r o g a t e o r e n l a r g e t h e f o r c e and e f f e c t o f a n e x i s t i n g r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. (1976). 82 Arn.Jur.2d Zoning - P l a n n i n g 5 4 and I t could be argued h e r e t h a t t h e f o r c e of t h e c o n s t i t u t i o n a l r i g h t s of developmentally d i s a b l e d persons t o l i v e i n a community e n v i r o n m e n t , and t h e s t r o n g l e g i s l a t i v e p o l i c y s u p p o r t i n g t h e same (see t h e s t a t e m e n t o f p u r p o s e i n t h e l e g i s l a t i o n a u t h o r i z i n g community l e v e l homes, s e c t i o n 53-20-301, MCA), would overcome a c o n f l i c t i n g r e s t r i c t i v e covenant i n a case l i k e t h i s . I t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y , however, f o r u s t o c o n s i d e r such a n argument, because h e r e w e f i n d a u s e e n t i r e l y c o m p a t i b l e w i t h and i n c o n f o r m i t y w i t h t h e s p i r i t , i n t e n t and l a n g u a g e o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t . Moreover, r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t s a r e t o b e s t r i c t l y cons t r u e d ; a m b i g u i t i e s t h e r e i n a r e t o be construed t o a l l o w free use of t h e property. Courts should n o t construe t h e i n t e n t o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t when a d o p t e d s o b r o a d l y a s t o c o v e r t h e d e s i r e s o f owners c o n f r o n t e d w i t h s i t u a t i o n s developing t h e r e a f t e r . Higdem v . Whitham ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 167 Mont. 201, 209, 536 P.2d 1 1 8 5 , 1190. H e r e t h e g r o u p home, by l a w , i s s t r u c t u r e d a s a s i n g l e h o u s e k e e p i n g u n i t , and t o a l l o u t s i d e a p p e a r a n c e s i s a u s u a l , s t a b l e and permanent f a m i l y u n i t . P l a i n s v . F e r r a i o l i ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 313 N.E.2d C i t y o f White 756, 758, 357 N.Y.S.2d 449, 452. N o t h i n g i n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e c o v e n a n t here r e q u i r e s a c o n s t r u c t i o n t h a t t h e "family" should be a biologically single unit. Accordingly, we hold t h e use a l l o w e d h e r e i s o n e w i t h i n t h e a m b i t and i n t e n t o f t h e r e s t r i c t i v e covenant. I T I S THEREFORE ORDERED t h a t t h e i n j u n c t i o n p e n d e n t e l i t e i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t i n t h i s c a u s e be q u a s h e d and t h a t t h e complaint f i l e d i n t h e m a t t e r e n t i t l e d Fishbough, e t a l . v . Region I1 C h i l d F a m i l y S e r v i c e s , e t a l . , 79-944, no. BVD- f i l e d O c t o b e r 31, 1 9 7 9 , i n t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e E i g h t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t b e d i s m i s s e d on t h e b a s i s of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l , s t a t u t o r y and c a s e a u t h o r i t y o f t h i s S t a t e . W e concur: r Chief J u s t i c e
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
