Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Family Transfer 509 Process topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commissioners review proposed changes to county family-transfer (509) process; ask staff and county attorney for legal review
Summary
A workshop reviewed proposed edits to Flathead County's family-transfer (509) review procedures, including new definitions for "straw person," timing for departmental review, and how court orders should be treated; commissioners asked for a consolidated draft and legal vetting.
Commissioners held a workshop discussion on April 16 about proposed revisions to the county’s family-transfer review process (often called the 509 process) and asked staff to consolidate commissioner edits and seek county attorney review.
Brad (staff) said the proposed edits focus on clearer definitions for terms such as a “straw person” and on clarifying when transfers between spouses or to minor children constitute an evasion of the law. “Definitions of what a straw person is was... one of the main thing,” Brad said, adding that the proposed text attempts to distinguish permissible family transfers from transfers intended to evade subdivision or land-review requirements.
Commissioners and staff reviewed several specific issues. One commissioner flagged a timing provision that had been shortened in a prior revision: the document refers to a departmental review window of 10 working days, while the Montana Code Annotated (MCA) includes a 20‑day reference for some application processes; staff said the plat review workflow routinely completes in five business days under current practice but that the rule had been changed previously from five to 10 days to reduce backlogs. Another commissioner asked that the document explicitly define “immediate family” (staff said immediate family means “a spouse, children by blood or adoption, and parents”) so criterial language aligns with statute.
A recurring point concerned court orders. One participant quoted MCA language, saying the code provides that requirements “may not apply to any division of land that is created by order of any court.” Staff explained the county’s plat-tracking historically has counted court-ordered divisions in the same category as other plats for administrative purposes, but commissioners asked for legal review because the MCA language suggests court-ordered divisions may be exempt.
No vote or formal policy change was taken. Commissioners asked staff to collect suggested edits from the three commissioners, merge them into a single draft, and work with the county attorney’s office to vet definitions and statutory references before scheduling another workshop.
Ending: Commissioners emphasized the need for legal review on court-order treatment and on how the code’s language aligns with current county practice; staff agreed to be the single point of contact to merge commissioner edits and negotiate revisions with the plat room and the county attorney’s office.
