In 2024, the Board of Directors voted to seek a legal opinion on a straightforward liability question: Is the GLA, representing all landowners collectively, responsible for addressing safety concerns on platted roads within the community road network? Or can it require only the landowners served by a particular road to pay for those improvements?

The central question was what liability the GLA could face if it knowingly left a potentially dangerous road condition unaddressed.

In 1997, the first GLA Board inherited a poorly maintained and inadequately funded road network. CUT demanded that the GLA plow and maintain several church-owned roads indefinitely, without compensation, even though the GLA held no easements for them.

Many parcels served by these private roads were outside the GLA's jurisdiction and were not required to pay assessments. Meanwhile, the GLA lacked sufficient funds to maintain the roads serving assessment-paying landowners.

The battle continued for nearly 20 years, and the underlying dispute remains unresolved.

In 2025, a landowner attempted to stop the GLA from widening a road. He claimed that because the easement crossed his property, he had the legal right to veto the work.

The GLA sought legal advice, and its attorney researched the issues and sent a detailed letter citing relevant case law. We have removed the recipient's personal information and parcel number to protect his privacy.

The letter explains easement law and its application to roads over which the GLA holds an easement.

Construction bonds are collected from landowners during the project application process. The GLA holds these funds in its savings account to help ensure that construction, site cleanup, and restoration are completed.

In 2020, approximately $20,000 in construction bonds from earlier projects remained unclaimed. The GLA sought advice on what process it could use to declare some of these funds forfeited and retain them.

During the counting of ballots for the 2018 annual election, a question arose about voter eligibility.

Covenant 3.19 defines a "Member of the Association in Good Standing" as "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 had allowed landowners with past-due Project Review fees to vote. Attorney Tyler Mullowney's opinion relied on a "plain reading" of the Covenants and did not cite case law.

In 2017, a heated debate arose over whether the GLA could legally charge 18% interest on past-due assessments. Attorney Rick Landers provided extensive legal analysis supported by case law. His well-supported opinion settled the debate.

Sometimes even an attorney is perplexed by the questions asked. What seemed obvious to the attorney was anything but clear to the GLA Board! Nevertheless, the opinion eventually led to substantive changes in election procedures.

Requests for legal opinions are not always driven by a search for truth. Sometimes the Board already has a preferred outcome and seeks legal advice to support it.

After a landowner photographed dozing directors at a monthly meeting and shared the images online, the Board sought advice on preventing further embarrassing photographs.

Attorney Alanah Griffith offered a convoluted opinion reassuring the Board that it could prohibit photography at meetings open to landowners. In our view, the opinion failed to adequately address concerns about freedom of the press.

The GLA Board routinely granted "hardship discounts" to landowners with overdue assessments, often reducing their balances by 50% or more. More than $50,000 was forgiven over just a few years.

In 2016, the Board finally sought an opinion from attorney Alanah Griffith. She reasoned that the discounts were permissible and could save landowners money by avoiding the expense of pursuing uncollectible debts.

She tempered that conclusion by acknowledging that no one can know how a judge will view a particular case.

Faced with criticism, some members of the 2016 GLA Board responded by labeling as much information as possible "confidential." Board emails, minutes, and even financial statements were treated as confidential.

In 2017, Director Leo Keeler prepared 11 questions about confidentiality. Attorney Alanah Griffith responded with a lengthy, well-reasoned, and helpful opinion.

What distinguishes a vacation rental from a residence? Can the GLA assess vacation rentals differently from other residential properties?

A detailed 2020 Montana Supreme Court ruling addressed several issues relevant to these questions.

Many landowners have built structures without GLA review. Can the Association require an owner to demolish a structure built without Board approval?

The GLA sought advice on obtaining a court order to stop construction and, potentially, require removal of an unauthorized building.

Attorney Alanah Griffith addressed both options in a detailed opinion. Citing case law, she reasoned that once construction had begun, a court would be unlikely to order the owner to tear the structure down.

Assessment revenue was never sufficient to maintain community roads properly, and the Board majority prized low assessments over safe roads. Its 2008 Road Policy discriminated against members living farther from county-maintained access roads by denying them basic road maintenance.

A platted road is identified on a recorded subdivision plat. These roads provide access to adjacent parcels, and the Covenants call for maintenance of all platted roads.

In 2015, the Board feared that an ongoing court case might require the GLA to provide equal road maintenance to all landowners. Attorney Seth Cunningham was asked to address the issue. His opinion was released to landowners after the case was settled.

Fresh faces and new ideas energized the 2017 Road Committee. After studying the governing documents, committee members concluded that all landowners were entitled to some level of road maintenance. They developed a 2017 Draft Road Policy and presented it to landowners.

Fearful of change, the 2017 Board asked attorney Seth Cunningham to review the existing 2008 Road Policy. His opinion shocked the Board and helped pave the way for eventual reform.

The Board dragged its feet, and a vote was delayed for years. Finally, the 2025 Board approved a policy reflecting the diligent work of the 2017 and 2018 Road Committees, the Road Policy Advisory Group, and the 2023 Governing Documents Committee.

Sometimes the GLA sought a legal opinion to justify a position it had already adopted. In 2020, the Board took the position that SB 300, now codified at Montana Code Annotated 70-17-901, did not protect landowners who purchased property before adoption of the 2007 Master Plan.

That position contradicted our reading of the law, which states: "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 Cunningham threaded the GLA needle by reframing the question. The Board received the answer it wanted and told landowners that its attorney had concluded SB 300 did not apply to Glastonbury. As usual, the written opinion was withheld under "attorney-client privilege."

The 2025 Board reached a different conclusion: SB 300 did apply to Glastonbury. It treated owners who acquired their property before February 2007 as exempt from the Master Plan's property restrictions, released Cunningham's written opinion, and approved multiple property improvement projects based on that interpretation.