constructive notice< because the CCRs were recorded. We simply find that given the facts of this case, the CCRs in question are not adhesive. “ e do not foreclose the possibility that a future plaintiff could demonstrate that land use covenants, conditions, and restrictions are adhesive. Graziano may not have had the ability to negotiate the terms of the original CCRs, but it is within his power to change and amend the CCRs in accordance with the amendment provisions in Section XVII of the CCRs. Further, Graziano has the ability to change the terms of the CCRs. First, the CCRs are not a standard form contract without negotiable terms. ¶ 9 The CCRs here are not a contract of adhesion. Read the discussion on “reasonable expectations.” Be sure to read Justice Nelson’s disagreement at the end of the opinion (emphasis added). I’ve excerpted relevant parts of the opinion below. Plaintiff had failed to address all the requirements of an adhesion contract. While the Court ruled the CC&Rs in this case were not adhesive, others may argue that CC&Rs are adhesion contracts. This judicial blindness to reality and the acceptance of the written word as gospel - “so let it be written and so it is done” - is a mockery of justice as one would expect from banana republic courts. Sadly, once again, the gentlemen in black fail in their understanding of the true nature and practicality of the effectiveness of those “grandiose” covenants within the CC&Rs. This very important Montana Supreme Court opinion concerns the explicit issue of CC&Rs as adhesion contracts.

Montana hoa covenants