Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Rights topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears broad support for expanding ‘grandfather’ protections in covenants
Summary
After extensive public testimony from homeowners, landlords and industry groups, the House Judiciary Committee advanced HB 761, which would extend existing HOA grandfathering protections to covenants without HOAs and allow limited family transfers to inherit protection.
Rep. Greg Overstreet told the committee HB 761 would extend protections currently found in MCA 70‑17‑901 so that non‑HOA covenants and families inheriting property would preserve previously permitted uses under a 'grandfather' rule.
"This is a simple bill that does two things to protect property rights for people with residential covenants," Overstreet said, describing the change as clarifying existing law so owners without formal HOAs have the same expectation protections.
The hearing drew a long line of proponents—property owners and small landlords who said they faced cease‑and‑desist letters, covenant changes and litigation after purchasing property with certain uses in mind. Robin Hogan and others described multi‑year efforts to purchase and renovate rental properties that were later challenged by neighbors; Jeffco Skypark Homeowners Association director Don Lepinski and leaders of Montana landlord organizations urged support to protect heirs and long‑term rentals.
Several attorneys and housing groups (Montana Association of Realtors, Montana Landlord Association) supported the concept while noting drafting issues. Opponents were limited; committee questioning focused on potential retroactivity, enforcement mechanics and interactions with existing zoning/board standards. Stephanie Baucus (attorney) and other proponents said courts have construed the 2019 HOA‑based grandfathering as consistent with property law and that the extension to non‑HOA covenants would close a drafting loophole.
The committee advanced the bill; proponents framed the change as protecting expectations and small landlords, while critics and some members asked for clarifying language on scope and enforcement.
