Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE · CHAPTER 2. PLANNING AND ZONING · Part 2. County Zoning
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-227 (2026)

Appeals -- Board Of County Commissioners Or Board Of Adjustment To Court Of Record -- County Commissioners May Establish Appeal Process

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 76
  3. CHAPTER 2
  4. Part 2
  5. 76-2-227 Appeals -- board of county commissioners or board of adjustment to court of record -- county commissioners may establish appeal process

TITLE 76. LAND RESOURCES AND USE

CHAPTER 2. PLANNING AND ZONING

Part 2. County Zoning

Appeals -- Board Of County Commissioners Or Board Of Adjustment To Court Of Record -- County Commissioners May Establish Appeal Process

76-2-227. Appeals -- board of county commissioners or board of adjustment to court of record -- county commissioners may establish appeal process. (1) (a) The board of county commissioners may establish in the zoning regulations a process for an appeal of a decision by the board of adjustment to the board of county commissioners by any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by a decision of the board of adjustment or an officer, department, board, or bureau of the county.

(b) The process, if established, must provide that an appeal to the board of county commissioners be initiated by presenting to the board of county commissioners a petition, duly verified, specifying the grounds of the appeal.

(c) The petition must be presented to the board of county commissioners within 30 days after the filing of the decision of the board of adjustment, and a final decision must be made within 60 days of receipt of the petition.

(d) The board of county commissioners shall properly notice and hold a public hearing de novo.

(2) Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by a decision of the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment may present to a court of record a petition, duly verified, setting forth that the decision is illegal, in whole or in part, and specifying the grounds of the illegality. The petition must be presented to the court within 30 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the appropriate board.

(3) Upon presentation of a petition, the court may allow a writ of certiorari directed to the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment to review the decision of the board and shall prescribe in the writ the time within which a return must be made and served upon the relator's attorney, which may not be less than 10 days and may be extended by the court. The allowance of the writ may not stay proceedings upon the decision appealed from, but the court may, upon application, on notice to the board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment, and on due cause shown, grant a restraining order. The board of county commissioners or the board of adjustment may not be required to return the original papers acted upon by it, but it is sufficient to return certified or sworn copies of the original papers or of portions of the original papers that may be called for by the writ. The return must concisely set forth other facts that may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the decision appealed from and must be verified.

(4) If, upon the hearing, it appears to the court that testimony is necessary for the proper disposition of the matter, the court may take evidence or appoint a referee to take evidence as it may direct and report the evidence to the court with the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law, which constitute a part of the proceedings upon which the determination of the court must be made.

(5) The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review.

History: En. Sec. 6, Ch. 246, L. 1963; R.C.M. 1947, 16-4706(8) thru (11); amd. Sec. 2514, Ch. 56, L. 2009; amd. Sec. 2, Ch. 171, L. 2015; amd. Sec. 1, Ch. 263, L. 2021.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2026 · leading case: Beasley v. Flathead Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments, 2009 MT 120, 205 P.3d 812.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Beasley v. Flathead Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments, 2009 MT 120, 205 P.3d 812. · cites it 19× “¶2 We review the following issues on appeal: ¶3 Did the District Court properly grant the Board’s motion to dismiss? ¶4 Did the District Court properly determine that § 76-2-227, MCA, provided Beasley an adequate remedy? PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶5 The Flathead County…”
Beasley v. Flathead Cnty., 2009 MT 121, 206 P.3d 915. · cites it 24× “Beasley had filed his appeal of the Board's denial of the CUP transfer pursuant to § 76-2-227, MCA. Beasley I, ¶ 8. Beasley moved to dismiss the appeal with prejudice, however, after the Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth had intervened to defend the Board's decision.”
Flathead Citizens for Quality Growth, Inc. v. Flathead Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 2008 MT 1, 175 P.3d 282. · cites it 7× “¶32 “Section 76-2-227, MCA, authorizes the reviewing court to hold a hearing and reverse, affirm, or modify a decision made by a board of adjustment.”
Vince v. Middle Cottonwood Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 2007 MT 160, 162 P.3d 856. · cites it 11× “¶11 On August 25,2004, the Arkells appealed the Board’s decision to the District Court and requested a writ of certiorari, as specified in § 76-2-227, MCA. The court, pursuant to § 76-2-227(3), MCA, appointed a referee to take additional evidence.”
Powell Cnty. v. Country Vill., LLC, 2009 MT 294, 217 P.3d 508. · cites it 5× “The District Court held a hearing on the County’s petition on June 27, 2008, and issued the restraining order on October 17, 2008. Happy Endings filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment or for a new trial, which was denied by the District Court on December 5, 2008.”
Grant Creek Heights, Inc. v. Missoula Cnty., 2012 MT 177, 285 P.3d 1046. · cites it 3× “¶16 Section 76-2-227(1), MCA, provides that a petition of illegality of a zoning decision “shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the board.”
Treasure Cnty. v. Edlund, 2026 MT 134, 591 P.3d 583. · cites it 6× “Section 76-2-227(1), MCA; compare § 76-2-107(1), MCA.”
Hamilton Historic Preserv. v. City, 2023 MT 119. · cites it 3× “” Flathead Citizens, ¶ 32 (citation omitted). “To determine whether an abuse of discretion has occurred, we examine whether the information upon which the Board based its decision is so lacking in fact and foundation that it is clearly unreasonable and constitutes an abuse of…”
Powell Co. v. Country Vill., 2009 MT 294. · cites it 3× “The District Court held a hearing on the County’s petition on June 27, 2008, and issued the restraining order on October 17, 2008.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-227(1): 2 cases
Grant Creek Heights, Inc. v. Missoula Cnty., 2012 MT 177, 285 P.3d 1046. “¶16 Section 76-2-227(1), MCA, provides that a petition of illegality of a zoning decision “shall be presented to the court within 30 days after the filing of the decision in the office of the board.”
Treasure Cnty. v. Edlund, 2026 MT 134, 591 P.3d 583. “Section 76-2-227(1), MCA; compare § 76-2-107(1), MCA.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-227(2): 2 cases
Beasley v. Flathead Cnty. Bd. of Adjustments, 2009 MT 120, 205 P.3d 812. “¶2 We review the following issues on appeal: ¶3 Did the District Court properly grant the Board’s motion to dismiss? ¶4 Did the District Court properly determine that § 76-2-227, MCA, provided Beasley an adequate remedy? PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶5 The Flathead County…”
Treasure Cnty. v. Edlund, 2026 MT 134, 591 P.3d 583. “Section 76-2-227(1), MCA; compare § 76-2-107(1), MCA.”
Mont. Code Ann. § 76-2-227(3): 1 case
Vince v. Middle Cottonwood Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 2007 MT 160, 162 P.3d 856. “¶11 On August 25,2004, the Arkells appealed the Board’s decision to the District Court and requested a writ of certiorari, as specified in § 76-2-227, MCA. The court, pursuant to § 76-2-227(3), MCA, appointed a referee to take additional evidence.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.