Finally, Hughes Creek Road declared public

[katqanna]

Landowners sue to keep Hughes Creek gate locked

I put in a FOIA for all the documents that had been compiled by then District Ranger Dave Campbell, passed on to Current District Ranger Ryan Domsalla, who presented some of the material and offered it to anyone at the Ravalli County Commission meeting on Jan 26, 2016. I put in a request for all that information. I have a copy of all the court records, which began in 1984 and continued through 1993, DV-84-248, dismiss without prejudice.

In the original May 29, 1984 filed case , Royal Teton LTD, the business name for the Church Universal Triumphant, one of the landowners on the Hughes Creek, had a gold mining claims there, put up two gates and padlocked them, cutting off public access. In the first lawsuit, Judge Wheelis denied the County's preliminary injunction stating on September 20, 1984, "the County had failed to adequately show public need for use of the road." The suit included Eli and Violet Cox, who are part of the current suit.

On October 19, 1988, County Attorney Robinson sent letter to the Commissioners recommending the matter of removing the gates be dismissed without prejudice in the event additional evidence might be introduced at a later date.

Then on December 10, 1993, Judge Langton dismisses the case without prejudice.

Now, thanks to Campbell and now Domsalla, the public has a massive amount of evidence to show public need for the road.

 

[tjones]

Sheesh, it seems this thing will never be over.
Thanks Kat.

 

[406LIFE]

Thanks Kat for keeping us in the loop. I saw this article today and thought that this was all over. Would staging a camp in or sit in be effective or just provocative?

 

[katqanna]

Good news... I called the District Court (calling 2x a week for a bit now to check on the status) and Judge Langton ruled to dismiss the Cox/Bugli case. They are scanning and emailing it to me shortly. As soon as I receive it I will post it.

So unless the landowners take this to the MT Supreme Court, we should have that gate down and open to the public shortly.

 

[Lonesome_God_outdoors]

Awesome to hear

 

[Schaaf]

Awesome news. Once again I don't feel like we can possibly thank you enough for all the work you do.

 

[katqanna]

Here it is -

DV-2017-137 Judge Langton Opinion & Order

The Ravalli County Attorney and Deputy Attorney did a very good job with their Defendant's Rule 12 Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for Count IV for failure to state a claim and Brief in support.

Judge Langton wrote, "Therefore, it begins its discussion with the County's Rule 12 motions to dismiss, which are fully briefed and ripe for ruling...it includes salient facts that were omitted from Plaintiff's Complaint."

Yeah, there was quite a bit of that.

In Langton's conclusion he writes concerning the Plaintiff's argument, "it is not only unpersuasive but disingenuous."

 

[tjones]

Nice work by all,,,,again.

Sad thing is all 6 of the (R) legislators from Ravalli County (where the Hughes Creek gate is)had a chance to support a bill from the MWF that would have gave the counties some teeth when dealing with private landowners locking public roads. It was a good common sense bill. All 6 did not support.

 

[Topgun 30-06]

That Judge knows his shit and did a great job in cutting the Plaintiffs to pieces with his ruling dismissing the case! Thanks again for all you do Kat!

 

[HighWildFree]

Good stuff!

 

[MTGomer]

Too bad that 10k/day fine law never passed.
There'd be less of this in the future.

 

[katqanna]

Topgun, I agree, it was a very good read and I hope, more than sufficient, should they try to appeal, that this case will be swiftly swatted aside.

MCA 7-14-2136 - $10 a day fine (last updated in 1965).

30 years x 365 days a year =10,950 days x $10 a day =$109,500

30 years of access the public lost out on = ?

 

[406LIFE]

I'm guessing that fine will never be levied.

Again, thank you all for what you do.

 

[mtmuley]

Good news. I've known the Bugli's awhile. Bet they are pissed. Oh well. Thanks Kat. mtmuley

 

[LMD423]

Great to hear and congrats on another public access point being kept open. Thank you

 

[katqanna]

Hughes Creek Road decision to be appealed

The move comes less than one week after the Ravalli County Commission sent a letter to Suzanne Raski and Michael Mikolaichik, who own the land on which the gate sits. In the letter, the commission said the couple needed to remove the gate by Aug. 1. If they did, the county said it wouldn’t seek repayment of costs or fines from them or other landowners.

“If the gate is not removed by that date, the county will remove the gate and may seek fines and costs to the extent allowed by law,” the letter states...

Jim Olson with the Ravalli County Fish & Wildlife Association has been fighting to get the road opened for about 10 years with the help of the Public Land/Water Access Association and a group of retired foresters. He noted that the Hughes Creek Road families have a right to pursue their legal options, but added that the Montana Supreme Court tends to rule in favor of public access on public roads.

“They’ve had that road to themselves for 40 years and don’t want to give it up. Maybe this is what it has to be to finalize this,” Olson said. “But there may be public benefit down the road. Talking to some of the PLWA members, Montana’s Supreme Court has been friendly toward them in cases like this.”

 

[tjones]

The gift that keeps on giving.

http://ravallirepublic.com/news/local/article_eb21069c-f034-5719-9f7d-7f2daeaac473.html

 

[katqanna]

Hughes Creek gate hearing postponed

A hearing scheduled for last Monday on the removal of the gate across Hughes Creek Road was postponed indefinitely at the request of the Ravalli County Attorney’s office.

According to documents filed in Ravalli District Court, the county believes that the court can hold just one hearing, instead of two, on a lawsuit and a temporary restraining order that bars the county from removing the gate or fining the landowner if it’s not removed...

Instead of having a hearing on the restraining order and another on the lawsuit itself, the county wants to tackle the matters together.

“We are preparing our response so we can do everything in one fell swoop,” said Deputy County Attorney Daniel Browder. “We expect to have something filed by the middle of September.”

 

[katqanna]

Hughes Road story takes new twist

The landowners attorney, who was a literature major in undergraduate studies, filed their MT Supreme Court brief as a literary play, I kid you not. I sure hope the Supreme Court does not appreciate this.

As the battle over the gate across Hughes Creek Road headed to court, attorney Jesse Kodadek filed what he considers a once-in-a-lifetime Montana Supreme Court brief — in the form of a play.

He figures that judges get a little bored reading legal briefs all day, every day. And since the Hughes Creek Road-gate case has taken so many twists and turns, he thought writing the opening brief as a play might make it a little easier to understand.

“I think about it all the time, especially with appellate judges, who read people’s writings every day,” said Kodadek, who is based in Missoula. “The Montana Supreme Court can’t tell what’s going on half the time, so I tried to be as clear as possible and lay out the story. I think there’s one time in your lifetime you can do something like this.”

After stating the three issues for review, Kodadek then makes his statement of the case in “Act I: The Political Process,” which appears to have some potential for comic opera.

“County: Hey, some people want us to make you take down that gate.”

“Landowners: The gate in front of our house? The one that has been there since at least the 1970s?”

“County: Yes, that one. Some people say a county road continues beyond it.”

“Landowners: Didn’t you sue us in 1984 to try to get the very same gate removed?”

And on it goes for four more pages, with Act II taking place at the courthouse. A footnote reminds the Supreme Court judges that this isn’t a verbatim transcript.

 

[elkduds]

Soliciting for a third act.