A Montana subdivision's covenants expired because 62.5 percent is not two-thirds
A Montana subdivision's covenants expired because 62.5 percent is not two-thirds
2026-09-15 · Montana · Courts
What happened. A Montana subdivision lost its covenants entirely — not because anyone challenged them, but because a renewal vote counted the wrong denominator.
The decision
Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Association, Inc., 2025 MT 47, 421 Mont. 59, 565 P.3d 299, docket DA 24-0502, decided March 11, 2025. Justice McKinnon wrote for the Court; the decision is published and citable. It affirmed summary judgment from the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County (Hon. Peter Ohman).1
The clause
The renewal language was identical from the original 1992 declaration through the Third Amended Declaration:
“The Covenants outlined herein shall be in effect for a period of 25 years, and thereafter can be extended by a vote of 2/3 majority vote of the owners.”
“Owner” was defined as “legal titled holders or contract purchasers … owning or purchasing a fee simple title to any lot.”
The arithmetic
Twenty-four owners. On the 2015 Fourth Amended Declaration, 15 voted yes, 1 voted no, and 8 abstained. The Court did the division:
“Simple math tells us that while this total represented an overwhelming majority of the participating owners, the 15 affirmative votes … constitutes only a 62.5 percent majority of all the owners.”
The association argued the threshold should be measured against the owners who voted. The Court refused: “The covenants do not make such a distinction.” Extrinsic evidence was also refused — “We cannot insert in the documents something which is not there,” citing Bordas v. Virginia City Ranches Ass'n, 2004 MT 342.
Result: the Third Amended Declaration expired by its own terms on October 22, 2017, and Gallatin West cannot enforce the Fourth Amended Declaration against Charlie's Win.
Keep reading with the Montana State Pass
The rest of this analysis — what an association can actually do, the recent bills and rulings, and how Montana compares nationally — is for subscribers. $49/month for every Montana topic on HOA Weekly.
$49/month, $449/year, or a $19.99 day pass.
What you unlock
- Renewal and amendment are not the same threshold
- Three rules a Montana board can take from this
- The question this puts to every Montana association with a term clause
and 1 more section in detail
Already a subscriber? Sign in
Recurring monthly subscription · Cancel anytime · Need help?
Related Montana HOA Topics
- Charlie's Win, LLC v. Gallatin West Ranch Homeowners' Association, Inc., 2025 MT 47 (DA 24-0502, Mar. 11, 2025), slip opinion (Montana Judicial Branch document service) ↩
- Byron v. Rainbow Estates Homeowners' Association, 2025 MT 181N (DA 24-0661, Aug. 12, 2025) — non-citable memorandum opinion on a bylaw amendment adopted without a meeting ↩
Stay on top of Montana HOA law
Every week: new Montana legislation, court rulings, and regulatory developments affecting condos, planned communities, and property managers. Free.
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.