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: January 25, 1 9 8 0
Decided: 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 en-
join 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 Develop-
mental 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. heir
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
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 pre-
v 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 inhabi-
tants 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 devel-
opmentally 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 family-
oriented residence or home designed to provide
facilities for two to eight developmentally
disabled persons, established as an alterna-
tive to existing state institutions. The
number of developmentally disabled persons may
not exceed eight in such a community home, ex-
cept that the department of social and rehab-
ilitation 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 . S e c t i o n s 76-2-313, 76-
2-314, MCA. 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-
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 developmen-
t 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. 82 Arn.Jur.2d Zoning - P l a n n i n g 5 4
and
(1976). 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 con-
s 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 . C i t y o f White
P l a i n s v . F e r r a i o l i ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 313 N.E.2d 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 . , no. BVD-
79-944, 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