Naylor v. Roundup Mesa Landowners Association — Reversed injunction excusing landowners from road-maintenance assessments

Case
Ken Naylor, Rae Naylor, Warren Hanson, Valerie Hanson, Wesley Shuey, Jennifer Montgomery, Michael McCandless, Deborah McCandless, Bryan Mann, Ashley Mann, Thomas Harsch, Teresa Harsch, Brett Bartlett, Andrew Brown, Carlton Crider, William Bradley, Jennifer Bradley, Gabriel Flanscha, Sherri Flanscha, Robert Varney, Troy Hoffman, David Shreeve, Wendy Shreeve, and Christopher Dios v. Roundup Mesa Landowners Association
Court
Montana Supreme Court
Judge
Beth Baker (elected 2011)
Date Decided
September 22, 2026
Docket No.
DA 25-0677
Topics
Preliminary Injunctions; Restrictive Covenants; Landowner Assessments; Property Liens
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Roundup Mesa Subdivision contains more than 70 lots and over 10 miles of roads. Recorded covenants state that the Roundup Mesa Landowners Association is responsible for maintaining nonpublic roads and that the owners association “shall assess all landowners” an annual road-maintenance fee. The Association’s bylaws also provide that unpaid assessments may become liens against subdivision lots.

Several landowners notified the Association in March 2025 that they were withdrawing from it and would no longer pay assessments. After the Association recorded liens against properties whose owners had not paid, the landowners sued for declaratory and injunctive relief. The District Court preliminarily ordered the Association to release the liens and relieved the landowners from paying assessments while the litigation remained pending. The Association released the liens and appealed.

The Court’s Holding

The Montana Supreme Court held that the District Court manifestly abused its discretion by finding that the landowners had established all four statutory requirements for preliminary relief. The recorded covenants expressly authorize assessments against all landowners and do not facially limit that obligation to Association members. The landowners therefore failed, at this preliminary stage, to establish a likelihood of success merely by emphasizing that Association membership was not mandatory. The Court did not decide the ultimate merits of their claims.

The Court also held that paying assessments presented an economic injury recoverable through repayment, not irreparable harm. The possibility of foreclosure was speculative because no foreclosure proceedings had begun and payment could avert that risk. In addition, suspending collections shifted road-maintenance costs to other lot owners and undermined the interests in enforcing covenants and maintaining subdivision infrastructure. The Court reversed the injunction only insofar as it excused assessment payments, left undisturbed the order requiring release of the liens, and remanded for a merits determination on a fuller record.

Key Takeaways

  • A recorded covenant authorizing assessments against “all landowners” may support collection regardless of whether membership in the owners association is mandatory.
  • Payment of disputed assessments generally constitutes economic harm that can be remedied by repayment and therefore does not establish irreparable injury.
  • When balancing equities and the public interest, courts must consider nonparty owners who may bear increased infrastructure costs if some landowners are excused from assessments.

Why It Matters

The decision distinguishes an obligation imposed directly by recorded covenants from an obligation dependent on association membership. A property owner’s resignation from an association does not, by itself, answer whether covenants independently require the owner to contribute to shared road maintenance.

The opinion also underscores that preliminary injunctions must be narrowly tailored and supported by proof of every statutory element. It is a noncitable memorandum opinion and does not serve as precedent, while the parties’ underlying dispute over assessments, governing documents, and lien authority remains unresolved on the merits.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top