The Montana Supreme Court ruled Feb. 10 that the City of Livingston prevailed in a property dispute with Christopher and Jennifer Atkinson, affirming the district court's grant of summary judgment in the city's favor.
In *Atkinson v. City of Livingston* (Mont. 2026), Justice Katherine Bidegaray delivered the court's opinion addressing whether the district court erred in applying Montana's statute of repose to bar the Atkinsons' claims against the city for negligence and negligent misrepresentation.
The case stems from the City's approval of the Ridgeview Trails Major Subdivision in 2005 and 2006. The City granted conditional preliminary plat approval followed by final plat approval in March 2006. The opinion references SK Geotechnical's involvement, though the full details of the company's role were not included in the available court documents.
The Atkinsons brought claims against the City alleging negligence and negligent misrepresentation related to the subdivision approval process. However, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the City, finding that the plaintiffs' claims were barred by Montana's statute of repose codified in Section 27-2-208 of the Montana Code Annotated.
A statute of repose differs from a statute of limitations in that it creates an absolute time limit for bringing certain types of claims, regardless of when the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the alleged wrongdoing. These statutes are designed to provide certainty and finality, particularly in cases involving construction, development, or professional services.
The Montana Supreme Court agreed with the district court's analysis, holding that Section 27-2-208 barred the Atkinsons' claims. The court wrote that "the claims are barred by the statute of repose set forth in § 27-2-208, MCA (2023)." Because this statutory bar was dispositive, the court declined to address the remaining issues raised in the appeal.
The case originated in the District Court of the Sixth Judicial District in Park County, where Judge Brenda R. Gilbert presided. The district court case was numbered DV-34-2024-71-NE, indicating it was filed in 2024.
The Atkinsons were represented by Brian J. Miller of Morrison, Sherwood, Wilson, and Deola PLLP in Helena. The City of Livingston was represented by Brian L. Taylor, Ryan C. Addis, and Greyson D. Hill of Taylor Nicastro Browne LLC in Billings.
The case was submitted on briefs Jan. 7 and decided Feb. 10, reflecting the court's efficient handling of the matter. The Montana Supreme Court designated the opinion as 2026 MT 21, making it part of the state's official case law.
This ruling reinforces the importance of Montana's statute of repose in protecting municipalities and other defendants from stale claims. The decision provides clarity for local governments regarding their exposure to liability for subdivision approvals and similar municipal functions.
For property owners, the ruling underscores the critical importance of understanding applicable limitation periods when considering legal action against municipalities. Statutes of repose can bar claims even when plaintiffs believe they have valid grievances against government entities.
The case also highlights the complex intersection of property development, municipal approval processes, and tort liability. Cities regularly make decisions about subdivision approvals that can have long-term consequences for property owners and developers.
Livingston, located in Park County, Montana, serves as the county seat and has experienced significant growth and development in recent years. The city's victory in this case may provide guidance for other Montana municipalities facing similar challenges from property owners seeking to hold cities liable for development-related decisions.
The Montana Supreme Court's decision not to reach the other issues raised on appeal means that questions about the merits of the Atkinsons' negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims remain unresolved. The court's focus solely on the statute of repose demonstrates the powerful effect these statutory time limits can have in litigation.
This case serves as a reminder that municipal liability for development decisions remains limited by statutory protections designed to provide certainty and finality in the law. The ruling may encourage other Montana cities to assert statute of repose defenses in similar cases involving subdivision approvals and related municipal actions.
The decision also reinforces Montana's approach to balancing property owners' rights to seek redress against the need to protect municipalities from indefinite liability exposure for their governmental functions.