The primary policy and general purpose underlying summary judgment is to encourage judicial economy through the prompt elimination of questions not deserving resolution by trial. Olson v. Osmolak, 2003 MT 151, ¶ 13, 316 Mont. 216, ¶ 13, 70 P.3d 1242, ¶ 13. However, summary judgment is never to be a substitute for trial if a material factual controversy exists.
We agree with the Browns' contention that material facts remain in dispute regarding the status of Four Corners South West Road. ¶ 17 While this Court has stated on numerous occasions that the purpose of summary judgment is to encourage judicial economy, it should never be a substitute for a trial if there is an issue of material fact. Olson v. Osmolak, 2003 MT 151, ¶ 13, 316 Mont. 216, ¶ 13, 70 P.3d 1242, ¶ 13. After a careful review of the record in this case, we conclude that the District Court erroneously resolved disputed issues of material fact, and therefore, exceeded the scope of its role at the summary judgment stage of this case.