Whitefish property owners appeal annexation ruling

A group of property owners along the east shore of Whitefish Lake has appealed a Flathead District Court ruling over annexation to the Montana Supreme Court.

Property owners in the Houston Lakeshore Tract and Stocking Addition believe the District Court erred when it “blessed” the city of Whitefish’s intention to bundle eight separate and distinct tracts of land, none of which standing as a single tract or parcel are “wholly surrounded.”

The property owners allege the portion of state law the city uses to annex wholly surrounded properties isn’t applicable and actually prohibits the city from attempting to annex more than one property at the same time. They want the state high court to reverse the district court decision.

District Judge Robert Allison sided with the city of Whitefish, ruling in April that property “need not share four common boundaries with the city to qualify” for annexation.

Allison cited a 1969 Great Falls court case that determined property is wholly surrounded when all lands on the side of the area are within the city, or it is impossible to reach the area without crossing through city territory. A property is wholly surrounded if it satisfies both prongs.

The appellants reiterated their assertions during opening briefs filed Friday.

Kalispell attorney Bruce Fredrickson, representing the property owners, stated “the Legislature meant what it said when it limited the involuntary ‘wholly surrounded’ annexation provisions of [state law] to a single tract or parcel of land.”

The property owners continue to assert it is possible to reach their properties without crossing city streets, including traveling via Whitefish Lake or other state and county roads. They further allege that because East Lakeshore Drive was not property annexed by the city, they do not cross over city territory to reach their properties.