Glastonbury Landowners Association

In 2024, the Board of Directors voted to seek a legal opinion on a simple liability question: Is the safety of a platted road in the GLA community road network the financial responsibility and legal liability of the GLA (all landowners collectively), or can the GLA inform a limited number of landowners that it is up to those landowners to personally foot the bill for addressing safety concerns on a platted road? In short, what is the risk to the GLA if it chooses to take no action when it is aware of a potentially dangerous road condition?

In 1997, the first GLA Board received a poorly maintained and inadequately funded Glastonbury road network. CUT demanded that several roads, for which the GLA did not hold an easement, and which the church owned, be plowed and maintained in perpetuity for free. Many of the parcels served by CUT's private roads did not fall under the GLA's legal jurisdiction and were not required to pay assessments. Meanwhile, there was not enough money to maintain roads that the GLA was responsible for, and landowners paid assessments for. The battle continued for almost 20 years and still has not been resolved.

In 2025, a landowner prohibited the GLA from road widening work. He claimed that because the easement was on his property, he had the legal right to veto road work. The GLA sought legal advice, and their counsel researched the issues raised. A detailed letter with case law citations was composed and sent. To protect the privacy of the receipient we omitted his personal information and parcel number. This letter describes easement law and how it pertains to all roads for which the GLA has an easement.

Construction Bonds are collected from landowners as part of the project application process. These funds are held by the GLA in their savings account to ensure construction completion, and site cleanup and restoration. In 2020, there was approximately $20,000 of unclaimed construction bond monies in the GLA's bank account from past projects.
What process might the GLA use to declare some of these fees ($20,000) to be forfeited and belonging to the GLA?

When tabulating the 2018 Annual Election ballots, a question arose regarding ineligible landowners. The covenants 3.19 Member of the Association in Good Standing states "A member of the Association that is current in the payment of all assessments to the Association and is not in violation of these covenants". Traditionally, the GLA allowed landowners who owed past-due Project Review fees to vote. Attorney Tyler Mullowney's legal opinion was based on a "plain reading" of the covenants and does not cite case law.

In 2017, a debate raged as to whether 18% interest on past due assessments was legal. The issue was sent to attorney Rick Landers, who provided extensive legal documents citing case law. His opinion was well supported and the issue was settled.

Sometimes even the attorney is perplexed by the questions asked. What seems obvious to them was opaque to the GLA board! Nonetheless, the attorney's opinion eventually led to substantive changes in election procedures.

Asking for legal opinions is not always in the pursuit of truth. Sometimes the board desires an action and seeks legal advice to realize its goal. When a landowner snapped photos of dozing directors at a monthly meeting and shared them via the internet, the board sought a legal opinion to prevent other embarrassing meeting photos from being snapped. In a convoluted opinion that disregarded 1st amendent press rights, attorney Alanah Griffith sought to reassure the board that they could ban picture taking at public meetings.

The GLA Board routinely gave landowners who were behind in their assessments "hardship discounts". The board often reduced a landowner's past due assessment bill by 50% or more. Upwards of $50,000.00 was forgiven in just a few years. In 2016, the issue was finally brought to attorney Alanah Griffith for her opinion. She reasoned that discounts were legal and the board was actually saving landowners money by not pursuing bad debts. Alanah balanced her opinion by stating that one can never get inside the mind of a judge.

When faced with criticism, some members of the 2016 GLA Board reacted by declaring as much information as possible "confidential". Board emails, minutes, and even financial statements were considered confidential. In 2017, Director Leo Keeler composed a list of 11 questions regarding questions of confidentiality. Attorney Alanah Griffith gave a lengthy, well-reasoned, and helpful opinion.

What is the difference between a vacation rental home and a residence? Can the GLA assess vacation rentals differently from a residence? In 2020, the Montana Supreme Court provided a detailed ruling that settled many issues.

Many landowners have built structures that were never reviewed by the GLA. Can the GLA require that a structure that was built without Board approval be torn down? Actions the GLA may consider are asking the court to file a "Cease" order and maybe force the owner to tear the building down. Alanah Griffith offered a detailed opinion regarding both actions. She reasoned that once a structure has started, it is unlikely that the court will ask the owner to tear it down. And she quoted case law to back up her opinion.

Assessments never provided enough money for the GLA to maintain community roads properly. The Board majority prized low assessments over safe roads. They created a 2008 Road Policy that discriminated against members who lived farther from a county-maintained access road by denying them basic road maintenance. A platted road is a roadway that has been legally defined, mapped, and officially approved. This type of road appears on a subdivision plat, which is a document recorded in public records to ensure its recognition and enforceability to access parcels adjacent to platted roads. The Covenants require that all platted roads receive maintenance. In 2015, it was feared that an ongoing court case might require the GLA to provide equal road maintenance to all landowners. Attorney Seth Cunningham was asked to intervene. The resulting opinion was released to landowners after the case was settled.

Fresh faces and new ideas dominated the 2017 Road Committee. They studied the GLA governing documents and determined that all landowners were entitled to some level of road maintenance. They created a 2017 Draft Road Policy and presented it to landowners. The 2017 GLA Board was fearful of change and asked attorney Seth Cunningham to opine on the existing 2008 Road Policy. His opinion shocked the Board and paved the way for the eventual acceptance of the 2017 Road Policy.
The GLA Board dragged its feet and managed to postpone a board vote for seven years. Finally, the 2025 GLA Board approved what the 2017, 2018 Road Committee and Road Policy Advisory Group, and 2023 Governing Docs Committees worked diligently to achieve.

Sometimes the GLA would ask for a legal opinion to justify a board position. In 2020, the GLA adopted the stance that SBS300, now Montana Code Annotated 70-17-901, had no effect for landowners who purchased property before the 2007 Master Plan was approved. That directly contradicted the law, which stated: "a homeowners' association may not enforce a covenant, condition, or restriction in such a way that limits the types of use of a member's real property that were allowed when the member acquired the affected real property". Attorney Seth Cunnigham successfully threaded the GLA needle by rephrasing the question. The GLA received the result they desired and told landowners that their attorney ruled that SBS300 did not apply to Glastonbury. As usual, the written legal opinion was hidden because it was covered by "attorney-client privilege".
The 2025 GLA Board ruled that SBS300 did apply to Glastonbury. Anyone who owned property before February 2007 was exempt from the Master Plan property restrictions. The 2025 board released Seth Cunningham's written opinion and approved multiple property improvement projects based on SBS300.