Case Title: Wilkoske v. Warren

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 1994-05-27T00:00:00Z

Document:
Wilkoske v. Warren1994 WY 60875 P.2d 1256Case Number: 93-202Decided: 05/27/1994Supreme Court of Wyoming
Robert 
C. WILKOSKE and Nona N. Wilkoske,

Appellants 
(Plaintiffs),

v.

Lonny 
D. WARREN,

Appellee 
(Defendant).

 

Representing 
Appellants:

Michael 
H. Reese of Wiederspahn, Lummis & Liepas, P.C., 
Cheyenne.

Representing 
Appellee:

Peter 
G. Arnold of Riske & Arnold, P.C., Cheyenne, for 
appellee.

MACY, 
Chief Justice.

[¶1]      Appellants Robert 
Wilkoske and Nona Wilkoske appeal from the district court's order which denied 
their requests for a declaratory judgment and an injunction to prohibit Appellee 
Lonny Warren from using a fenced easement which crossed his 
land.

[¶2]      We 
affirm.

[¶3]      The Wilkoskes 
present the following issues:

1. 
Whether a specific grant in a deed of an exclusive easement excludes even 
the servient estate owner from the easement area as a matter of law? 

a) 
What is the nature and scope of this exclusive 
easement?

b) 
Whether the Court below erred in construing the nature and scope of the 
exclusive easement?

2. 
Whether the Court below was clearly erroneous in rendering a decision with 
respect to certain findings of fact?

[¶4]      On December 11, 
1959, the United States of America (hereinafter the Government) filed a 
complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming to 
condemn land located in Laramie County to be used for Atlas D missile sites. The 
United States District Court entered a final judgment which gave the Government 
a fee simple interest in Tract A for a missile site. United States of America 
v. 493.07 Acres of Land, No. 4331 Civil (D.Wyo. Sept. 23, 
1960).

[¶5]      The final 
judgment also conveyed to the Government an easement which was approximately 200 
feet wide and located completely within Tract B. The easement contained 8.21 
acres and divided Tract B into two parcels. The northeastern parcel comprised 
twenty acres and could not be legally accessed from the remainder of Tract B 
without crossing the easement. The Government erected a fence around the 
easement and constructed a paved road on the easement from Wyoming Highway 217 
to its missile site which was located on Tract A. The following map illustrates 
the approximate location of the easement:

[¶6]      The Wilkoskes 
purchased Tract A after the missile program had been phased out, and Mr. Warren 
subsequently purchased Tract B.

[¶7]      The final 
judgment described the scope of the easement:

(c) 
A perpetual and assignable exclusive easement and right of way to locate, 
construct, operate, maintain, repair, patrol, replace and/or remove an access 
road and overhead and/or underground electric power lines and overhead and/or 
underground communication lines, in, upon, under, over and across Tract [B], 
together with the right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, 
underbrush and obstructions and any other vegetation, structure or obstacles 
within the limits of the right of way; and the right to prohibit ingress and 
egress on and over said tract for the purpose of exploring, testing, developing, 
producing and removing any minerals, including gas and oil, from the surface of 
said tract; subject, however, to the existing easements for public roads and 
highways, public utilities, railroads and pipelines.

[¶8]      In September 
1992, the Wilkoskes sought a declaration that they had a right to exclude Mr. 
Warren from the easement and an injunction preventing him from removing either 
the fence located around the easement or the locked gate located on the western 
boundary of the easement. Mr. Warren filed a counterclaim seeking the right to 
use the easement and to cross it to gain access to the northeastern twenty acres 
of his tract. After a bench trial, the district court ruled that the Wilkoskes 
could not exclude Mr. Warren from the easement area. The district court ordered 
the Wilkoskes to give Mr. Warren a key to the locked gate and ruled that Mr. 
Warren was entitled to remove or relocate the fence at his own expense as long 
as the removal or relocation did not interfere with the Wilkoskes' rights in the 
easement.

[¶9]      The Wilkoskes 
claim that the language which created the easement prohibits Mr. Warren from 
using the easement. They contend that the term "exclusive easement" as used in 
the United States District Court's final judgment "operates to create an 
interest in [the] land of [Mr. Warren] that excludes everyone, including the 
owner of the servient estate, from the easement area." We 
disagree.

The 
grant of an exclusive easement conveys unfettered rights to the owner of the 
easement to use that easement for purposes specified in the grant to the 
exclusion of all others. Because an exclusive grant in effect strips the 
servient estate owner of the right to use his land for certain purposes, thus 
limiting his fee, exclusive easements are not generally favored by the 
courts.

Latham 
v. Garner, 
105 Idaho 854, 673 P.2d 1048, 1050 (1983). Merely using the word "exclusive" 
when creating an easement is not, in and of itself, sufficient to preclude use 
by the owner of the servient estate. 673 P.2d  at 1051. Language which creates an 
easement does not exclude the owner of the servient estate "`in the absence of a 
clear indication of such an intention.'" Bard Ranch Company v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 730 (Wyo. 1976) (quoting City of Pasadena v. California-Michigan 
Land & Water Co., 17 Cal. 2d 576, 110 P.2d 983, 985 (1941) (en 
banc)).

[¶10]   The final judgment entered by the 
United States District Court in the condemnation proceedings described the 
taking as being a "perpetual and assignable exclusive easement and right of 
way"; it did not describe the taking as being a fee simple estate. If the United 
States District Court had intended to condemn a fee simple interest in the land, 
it could easily have used the term "fee simple" instead of the term "easement." 
The final judgment also did not indicate an intent to award additional 
compensation for the right to exclude the owner of the servient estate. See, 
e.g., Demetria Sifuentes v. United States, 168 F.2d 264, 267-68 (1st Cir. 
1948) (remanding for findings when the District Court's judgment failed to 
expressly indicate an award of compensation for the right to exclude servient 
estate owners).

[¶11]   The language in the final judgment 
did not clearly indicate an intent to exclude the owner of the servient estate. 
As a matter of law, Mr. Warren may use the easement as long as he does not 
interfere with the Wilkoskes' rights in the easement.

[¶12]   Because of our holding, we do not 
need to address the Wilkoskes' remaining contentions.

[¶13]   Affirmed.