Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association has the right to install gates and close its private subdivision roads to vehicular traffic, the Montana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The high court upheld a 2015 Flathead District Court ruling that maintained the city of Whitefish has to abide by terms of the subdivision’s final plat that allow for private roads to be closed to the public. The city appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court.

“The District Court’s interpretation and application of the law were correct, its findings of fact were not clearly erroneous and its ruling was not an abuse of discretion,” state Supreme Court Justice James J. Shea stated in the opinion.

The homeowners association, represented by Whitefish attorney Sean Frampton, sued the city of Whitefish two years ago over a resolution that tightened the city’s prohibition of gated communities. The association asserted there’s enough public traffic on those private roads year-round to warrant permanent gates on Mountainside Drive.

The matter came to a head when Grouse Mountain Estates Homeowners Association decided to put gates at the entrances of the subdivision on opposite ends of Mountainside Drive. The gates were prompted by the reconstruction of U.S. 93 West. During the highway reconstruction, motorists often opted to drive through Grouse Mountain Estates to avoid the construction zone.

Grouse Mountain Estates — not to be confused with the older Grouse Mountain subdivision served by Fairway Drive — was approved for final plat in 1997. As part of the plat, the city certified that roads within Grouse Mountain Estates were private and exclusive.

The older Grouse Mountain subdivision attempted to join the lawsuit as an intervenor, alleging Grouse Mountain Estates’ gates would impede its existing easement rights. The court, however, did not grant intervenor status.

In its appeal, the city contended the District Court should not have addressed the issue of whether the city’s resolution violates Grouse Mountain Estates’ constitutional right because “no justiciable controversy existed.” The city further argued the District Court erred in determining the Estates’ constitutionally protected property right in installing gates was vested at final plat approval.

Instead, the city contended the gates on Mountainside Drive are subject to Public Works Department review, pursuant to city engineering standards and a final plat condition that specifically refers to plans for streets, not gates.

The Supreme Court determined the city “cannot now withdraw its approval of that plat” by passing a resolution that restricts gates on private roads.

Features editor Lynnette Hintze may be reached at 758-4421 or by email at lhintze@dailyinterlake.com.