Case Title: PETERS v JOHNSON

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1983-03-10T00:00:00Z

Document:
N O . 82-234 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1 9 8 3 BEVERLY J . PETERS, P l a i n t i f f a n d A p p e l l a n t , V S . EDWARD G . JOHNSON and HELEN L. JOHNSON, Husband a n d Wif e l D e f e n d a n t s a n d R e s p o n d e n t s . A p p e a l f r o m : D i s t r i c t C o u r t o f t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n a n d f o r t h e C o u n t y o f P a r k H o n o r a b l e J a c k S h a n s t r o m , J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . C o u n s e l o f R e c o r d : F o r A p p e l l a n t : J o n A . O l d e n b u r g , L e w i s t o w n , Montana F o r R e s p o n d e n t s : K e n t D o u g l a s , L i v i n g s t o n , Montana S u b m i t t e d : F e b r u a r y 3 , 1 9 8 3 D e c i d e d : March 1 0 , 1983 F i l e d : yAgi.)!g$3 M r . J u s t i c e John Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e C o u r t . P e t e r s a p p e a l s from t h e judgment of t h e District Court h o l d i n g P e t e r s is n o t e n t i t l e d to an easement a c r o s s J o h n s o n s ' p r o p e r t y . P e t e r s owns l a n d i n P a r k County, n e a r L i v i n g s t o n , Montana. I n t h e summer of 1979, P e t e r s began n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h t h e Johnsons f o r t h e sale of t h e land c o n s i s t i n g of 26.040 acres. I n i t i a l l y , E. L. Johnson was to purchase a p a r c e l of about twenty acres w h i l e h i s f a t h e r E . G. Johnson was to purchase a p a r c e l of about s i x a c r e s . Through t h e s i x - a c r e p a r c e l i n t o t h e twenty-acre par- cel r u n s a s t r i p of land which s e r v e d as a road p r i o r to 1922. W i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h e road was t h e main l i n k between L i v i n g s t o n and W i l s a l l u n t i l a new highway was b u i l t i n 1922. A l l p a r t i e s a g r e e t h e o u t l i n e of t h e o l d road is still v i s i b l e across t h e l a n d b u t t h a t it h a s n o t been used as a road f o r a long p e r i o d of t i m e p r i o r to t h i s a c t i o n . A f t e r n e g o t i a t i o n s w i t h E. L. Johnson broke down, E. G. Johnson agreed to purchase t h e s i x - a c r e tract from P e t e r s . I n September 1979, E. G. Johnson p a i d P e t e r s $400 i n e a r n e s t money. When E . L. and E . G. Johnson were p l a n n i n g to purchase t h e t w o p a r c e l s o f l a n d r P e t e r s was n o t concerned w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y of a n easement through t h e s i x - a c r e p l o t to t h e twenty-acre p l o t . A f t e r E . L. Johnson decided n o t to purchase t h e twenty acresr P e t e r s added a 30-foot road easement to t h e o r i g i n a l c l o t h p r i n t p l a t of t h e p r o p e r t y and f i l e d t h e p l a t w i t h t h e c l e r k and r e c o r d e r ' s off i c e . The easement is where t h e o l d Wilsall road c r o s s e d t h e s i x - a c r e p a r c e l . There is no o t h e r p r e s e n t access t o t h e twenty-acre tract. On O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 r t h e P e t e r s and t h e Johnsons m e t i n t h e o f f i c e of P e t e r s ' a t t o r n e y and executed an agreement to sell and p u r c h a s e . The d e s c r i p t i o n of real p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n e d t h e p h r a s e : " S u b j e c t to an e x i s t i n g easement t h i r t y f e e t i n width." J o h n s o n s t t e s t i f i e d t h e y signed t h e agreement w i t h t h e u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h a t i f t h e s t r i p of land had n o t a c t u a l l y been a c o u n t y r o a d , t h e r e would be no " e x i s t i n g easement" which t h e pro- p e r t y would be " s u b j e c t t o . " P e t e r s and t h e i r a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h e y had n o t reached such an agreement w i t h t h e Johnsons p r i o r to s i g n i n g t h e c o n t r a c t . Evidence i n t r o d u c e d a t t h e District Court h e a r i n g showed t h e s t r i p of land was n o t recorded as a county road n o r was an easement recorded p r i o r to t h i s a c t i o n . On A p r i l 6 , 1981, P e t e r s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t a g a i n s t t h e Johnsons s e e k i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s p e c i f i c performance of t h e agreement to s e l l and p u r c h a s e which c o n t a i n e d t h e easement c l a u s e . On May 1 4 , 1982, t h e District Court e n t e r e d its f i n d i n g s of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s of l a w and h e l d Johnsons are e n t i t l e d to a deed to t h e p r o p e r t y f r e e of any easements. P e t e r s a p p e a l s . The s u b s t a n c e of t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d on appeal is whether t h e District Court e r r e d i n r u l i n g t h a t t h e r e w a s no easement i n e x i s t a n c e on October 1 7 , 1980, and t h a t Johnsons are e n t i t l e d to a deed to t h e p r o p e r t y f r e e of any such p u r p o r t e d easement. P e t e r s claims s h e is e n t i t l e d t o a n implied r e s e r v a t i o n of easement through t h e s i x - a c r e tract. She relies upon s e c t i o n 70-20-308, MCA: "A t r a n s f e r of real p r o p e r t y p a s s e s a l l ease- ments a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o and creates i n f a v o r t h e r e o f an easement to use o t h e r real p r o p e r t y o f t h e p e r s o n whose estate is t r a n s f e r r e d i n t h e same manner and to t h e same e x t e n t as such p r o p e r t y was o b v i o u s l y and permanently used by t h e p e r s o n whose estate is t r a n s f e r r e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t t h e r e o f a t t h e same t i m e when t h e t r a n s f e r w a s agreed upon or completed ." Johnsons c l a i m P e t e r s is n o t e n t i t l e d to an easement because t h e r e w a s no easement e x i s t i n g a t t h e t i m e t h e y executed t h e agreement to sell and p u r c h a s e . T h i s Court first recognized a n i m p l i e d r e s e r v a t i o n of easement i n T h i r s t e d v. Country Club Tower C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 87, 405 P.2d 432. S i n c e t h a t t i m e t h e d o c t r i n e h a s become w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. One type of i m p l i e d easement is a "way of n e c e s s i t y . " T h i s Court d i s c u s s e d way of n e c e s s i t y i n Schmid v. McDowell (1982) , Mont . I " G e n e r a l l y a way of n e c e s s i t y is d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : ' [wlhere an owner of land conveys a p a r c e l t h e r e o f which has no o u t l e t to a high- way e x c e p t o v e r t h e remaining l a n d s of t h e g r a n t o r or o v e r t h e land of s t r a n g e r s , a way o f n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s o v e r t h e remaining l a n d s o f t h e g r a n t o r . Finn v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 376 I l l . 95, 33 N.E.2d 226, 228; see also, 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements, s e c t i o n 34 e t s e q . ; 3 Powell on Real P r o p e r t y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , s e c t i o n 410. S i m i l a r l y , a way o f n e c e s s i t y is found when - . - -- --- - t h e owner - o f l a n d s r e t a i n s -- t h e - - i n n e r p o r t i o n conveying t o a n o t h e r t h e b a l a n c e , across which - - . - he must g T f o r e x i t and access. -- -- - - - - - - - Powell, s u p r a , s e c t i o n 410. The easement i t s e l f ari- ses a t t h e t i m e of conveyance, i.e., when t h e n e c e s s i t y to have access to t h e o u t s i d e world arises. U n l i k e o t h e r i m p l i e d e a s e m e n t s , it is t h e r e f o r e w e l l s e t t l e d t h a t a way o f n e c e s s i t y - - - - - - . - - - d o e s n o t arlse p r l o r to t h a t time." ( ~ m p h a s i s - - - - p - - s u p p l i e d . ) Here, Johnsons claim t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t h e t i m e of exe- c u t i n g t h e agreement w a s o n l y i f t h e r e was an e x i s t i n g county r o a d would P e t e r s be g r a n t e d an easement. U n f o r t u n a t e l y f o r P e t e r s , t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e v i s i b l e roadway had been a recorded c o u n t y road was i n error. However, as s t a t e d above, t h e way of n e c e s s i t y arose a t t h e t i m e of conveyance and whether t h e r e a c t u a l l y was an e x i s t i n g easement is i r r e l e v a n t . Judgment of t h e District Court is r e v e r s e d and remanded t o e n t e r judgment i n accordance w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n . F7e concur: R A W U Chief ~ u s t i 6 e