The Montana Supreme Court ruled on August 18, 2026, in the case of McNain Holdings LP v. Wilderness Preserve US LP, affirming a jury's decision that awarded damages to McNain Holdings and its partners. The court's ruling impacts the rights of consumers in similar contractual disputes, emphasizing the importance of honoring agreements made in property transactions.
In this case, McNain Holdings, along with partners Jay Robert Blake and Naomi Monica Blake, sued Wilderness Preserve after it failed to deliver on promises regarding luxury fractional ownership properties at the Wilderness Club in Eureka, Montana. The ruling underscores the court's commitment to protecting consumer rights and ensuring that businesses adhere to their contractual obligations.
Background
The dispute began when the McNains and Blakes sought to purchase fractional interests in luxury villas at the Wilderness Club in August 2015. They were informed that no four-bedroom villas were available at that time, leading them to sign purchase agreements for fractional interests in three-bedroom villas instead. The agreements promised that once a four-bedroom villa was constructed, they would be transferred to it without the obligation to pay maintenance fees until that transfer occurred.
Despite their initial excitement, the McNains and Blakes found themselves in a frustrating situation as years passed without the construction of the promised four-bedroom villas. In April 2023, Wilderness Preserve demanded that they begin paying maintenance fees, even though the contractual conditions for such payments had not been met. This led to a breakdown in communication and ultimately the cancellation of their reservations at the resort.
After filing a lawsuit in August 2023, the McNains and Blakes argued that Wilderness had breached their contract and violated the Montana Consumer Protection Act (MCPA). The case went to trial in April 2025, where the jury awarded each couple $250,000 in damages for the breach of contract but ruled in favor of Wilderness on the MCPA claim.
The Ruling
The Montana Supreme Court, led by Justice James Jeremiah Shea, upheld the jury's verdict, affirming that substantial evidence supported the damages awarded to the McNains and Blakes. The court stated, "Substantial evidence supports the jury awarding damages to the McNains and Blakes for the loss of use that occurred after the change in ownership." This ruling confirmed that the jury's decision was based on credible evidence, including testimonies regarding the couple's intentions to use their fractional interests in the future.
Additionally, the court addressed Wilderness's request to alter the judgment or grant a new trial, stating that the District Court did not err in its decisions. The court emphasized that the McNains and Blakes were the prevailing parties entitled to attorney fees and costs, as their claims were intertwined and stemmed from the same factual basis. The court noted, "The District Court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the McNains and Blakes their entire fee because the McNains and Blakes constituted the prevailing party and the time dedicated to the breach of contract claim was inextricably intertwined with the MCPA claim."
Impact
This ruling is significant for consumers and property owners, as it reinforces the principle that businesses must honor their contractual obligations. The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting consumers from unfair business practices and ensuring that they receive the benefits promised in contracts. The ruling also emphasizes that courts will consider the entirety of a case when determining attorney fees, particularly when multiple claims arise from the same set of facts.
Going forward, this case may serve as a precedent for similar disputes involving property contracts and consumer protection claims. It establishes that consumers can seek damages for losses incurred due to a business's failure to uphold its end of a contract, even if the business later changes ownership.
What's Next
The court remanded the case for further proceedings to determine the reasonable attorney fees and costs incurred by the McNains and Blakes on appeal. Wilderness Preserve has not indicated whether it plans to appeal the ruling further, but the outcome of this case will likely influence future contractual disputes in Montana.