This site demands javascript

skip to main content
Sheridan County School District #2 > Shared Well Agreement Montana

Shared Well Agreement Montana

In addition, lenders may require specific provisions for joint water contracts to secure their investment in mortgaged real estate. The parties should design the agreement and all amendments in such a way that they meet the requirements of their lenders as well as existing federal, state and local laws.  26 First, I conclude that the agreement on the common water well is not unlawful in itself, since the FCHD allows the parties to obtain an authorisation for the use of such a well even if the subdivision certificate limits the individual wells.   Although the Subdivision Certificate states that “each water system shall consist of a well drilled to a minimum depth of 25 feet,” a certificate of plate authorization can be departed from upon application. Competently written agreements can also be controversial. Some of these quarrels occur because reasonable minds disagree on how best to deal with a problem, for example. B when the well pump breaks and there is more than one way to repair it, or repair options vary in terms of cost and efficiency. However, other disputes may arise exclusively from users of goods who are not willing to comply with the terms of the agreement, regardless of their provisions. In both cases, the parties should define a procedure for the settlement of disputes and the application of the terms of an agreement, if necessary.

7 On 21 February 2980, Thompsons and Servo entered into an agreement in connection with the purchase of Tract 3, granting Servo the right to use the Thompsons wing water well by granting Servo an easement for the right to install, repair, replace and maintain domestic water pipes via Tract 4.   This common water well agreement (agreement) provided for a monthly water charge of $10 to be paid to Thompsons and also contained a provision that fees could be increased based on changes in electricity costs related to the well.   The agreement provided that it was binding on the parties, their heirs and beneficiaries of assignments and that they were then registered in Flathead County, Montana. 12 In 1994, brother-in-law began complaining to Williams that when the pressure tank was activated late at night, the tank was noisily disturbing his family.   Susan Brother-in-law sent a letter to Williams in March 1994 asking him not to activate the fountain pump late at night or all night, as the sound of the pressure vessel would wake up the brother-in-law family, especially young children.   From time to time, the pressure tank was turned off, either by power outage or when brother-in-law manually stopped the power from his house`s stop plate.   When the pressure tank was turned off, the water from the well could not be made accessible by either house. 14 On 4 June 1996, brother-in-law filed an application for summary judgment to find that Williams was not legally entitled to a common well and an order requiring him to comply with the certificate.   The District Court held a hearing on the application on 24 September 1996.

  After examining both oral and documentary evidence, on 23 December 1997 the District Court gave its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order.   The court concluded that the water system did not constitute a private or public nuisance and that the agreement was valid and enforceable.