Association of Unit Owners of the Deer Lodge Condominium v. Big Sky of Montana, Inc., 798 P.2d 1018 (1990)

of habitability is a legal duty placed on the builder/vendor of a
house, that a breach of such legal duty is a tort, and that torts
do not require privity of contract.
     The unit owners further point to our decisions which have held
that subdivision plats, which reserve roadways or which show a park
or like open area, create an implied common law covenant between
developers and subsequent purchasers that the seller will open and
construct roadways or that the areas will be used in the manner
designated. Majers v. the Shining Mountains (1986), 219 Mont. 366,
711 P.2d 1375; Benson          v. Pyfer (Mont. 1989), 783 P.2d 923, 46
St.Rep. 2033.
      Realty answers these contentions by arguing that the unit
owners purchased their units from Big Sky of Montana, Inc., and not
from Realty and that there are no contract declarations or other
documents between Realty and the unit owners upon which a warranty
may be based.      Realty further answers that if a breach of implied
warranty of habitability could be found in the contract for repair
in 1977, a breach of that implied warranty would be a tort (Desnan,
supra) barred by the statute of limitations. Sections 27-2-204 and
27-2-207, MCA.
     We    will    discuss     the   applicability   of   the   statutes   of
limitations under the next            caption, since the        statutes are
applicable to other issues raised by the unit owners. It is enough
to say here that we find no express or implied warranties in the
documents described which expose Realty to liability to the unit
owners.    On this issue we uphold the District Court.
3.   Statutes of Limitation
      In   its    grant   of    summary   judgment, the    District    Court
determined that many of the claims of the unit owners were barred
because various statutes of limitation had run on the theories of
express warranty, implied warranty, strict liability, negligence,
fraud, and deceptive practices.
     In disputing the applicability of the statutes of limitation,
the unit owners contend that they were never made aware of the
deficiencies in the fireplaces prior to 1976, and were never
advised after the repair effort of 1976 that the fireplaces were
still defective.       They contend the actual condition of the
fireplaces was not discovered until the fires of 1981.        They
therefore maintain that the statutes of limitation on all theories
did not start to run until the time of discovery.   Since the Fire
case was filed in January 18, 1983, the unit owners contend they
meet all applicable statutes of limitation based on the time of
discovery.
     Subject to certain exceptions not pertinent here, the Montana
statutes of limitation provide that an action for the relief of
fraud or mistake must be commenced within two years ( 5 27-2-203,
MCA) ; for a general tort, three years ( 5 27-2-204, MCA) ; for an