Case Title: WHITE v. ALLEN

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2003-03-18T00:00:00Z

Document:
WHITE v. ALLEN2003 WY 3965 P.3d 395Case Number: 02-121Decided: 03/18/2003
OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2002

                                                                                                
   

ANNE 
WHITE,

Appellant(Defendant) ,

 
 

v.

 

DAN 
ALLEN and MELINDA ALLEN,

Appellees(Plaintiffs) .

 
 

Appeal 
from the District Court of Laramie County

The Honorable Edward L. Grant, Judge

 
 
    

Representing 
Appellant:

Bernard Q. Phelan, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
   

Representing 
Appellees:

Peter G. Arnold, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

 
 
   

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, LEHMAN, KITE, and VOIGT, 
JJ.

 
 
        

            
HILL, Chief Justice.

 
  

[¶1]      Appellant, Anne 
White (White), appeals from the order of the district court that granted summary 
judgment in favor of Appellees, Dan and Melinda Allen (Allens) and dismissed her 
counterclaims.  The Allens have an 
easement for a roadway across White's property.  They erected cattle guards on the 
eastern and western boundaries of the easement where the roadway intersects the 
fence enclosing the White parcel.  A 
dispute arose between the parties when White placed gates on that easement as it 
passed through her fence lines, and insisted that the gates remain closed before 
and after each passage through the fence.  
The 
district court ordered White to remove her gates and prohibited her from 
otherwise interfering with the Allens' use of the easement.

 
            
         

[¶2]      We will reverse and 
remand with directions that further proceedings are required because there are 
genuine issues of material fact that preclude summary judgment.

 
   
           
         

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      White poses these 
questions:

 
   

I.          
Whether, as a matter of law, cattle guards do not materially increase the 
burden on the servient estate, or whether such factual determination depends on 
the specific circumstances?

II.          
Whether Wyo. Stat. § 6-9-202 imposes a duty which, in these 
circumstances, gives rise to an action in tort?

 
           
       

The Allens present these arguments:

 
 
   

I.          
Whether the owner of land which is encumbered with an access easement has 
the right to place wire gates across cattle guards erected within the easement 
by the easement owner?

II.          
Is the determination of whether cattle guards increase the burden on the 
servient estate a material question of fact?

III.         
Whether W.S. 6-9-202 which makes it a crime to leave a gate open is 
applicable when the gate in question is not legally permissible?

 
              
         

FACTS

 

[¶4]      The Allens 
initiated this action by means of a "Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and 
Money Judgment."  The Allens (who 
possess the dominant estate) have an easement across White's property (the 
servient estate).  In their 
complaint, the Allens alleged that White insisted on having a wire gate across 
the cattle guards that they installed at each end of their easement, and that 
she otherwise interfered with their use of the easement, as well as their 
tenants' and visitors' use of the easement.  The Allens alleged that White damaged 
the cattle guards they installed, thus rendering them less effective for their 
intended purpose.  They further 
alleged that they have friends who are disabled and physically unable to open 
and close the gates, which are unusually tight and difficult to operate, and 
that emergency services would be delayed by the gates.  The source document for the Allens' 
easement contains only this language:  
"Subject to an access road right-of-way for 
the non-exclusive use by the patentees, their successors and assigns [Allens], 
to construct, use, control, maintain, improve and repair a road over and across 
[White's land]."

 
            
          
          

[¶5]      White answered 
that complaint, claiming that the cattle guards installed by the Allens were 
inadequate and substantially increased the burden on her property because they 
allowed her cattle to drift out of her property.  In addition, White claimed to have been 
damaged by the failure of the Allens to close her gates.  White made a demand 
for a jury trial.

 
       

[¶6]      The Allens filed 
a motion for summary judgment and White opposed that motion.  Both parties submitted affidavits and, 
on the basis of those affidavits, the district court made its findings.  The district court found that the Allens 
had placed cattle guards on the easement so as to facilitate their use of 
it.  White then installed wire gates 
without the permission of the Allens and insisted that those gates be kept 
closed.  The gates interfered with 
the Allens' use of their easement.  
The Allens maintained that it was inconvenient to get out and open, and 
then close, the two gates each time they or a visitor traversed the road.  In addition, they asserted that it was 
dangerous because it was necessary to walk over the cattle guards, especially 
when they were wet, snowy, or icy.  
The Allens once observed one of White's cattle use its horns to lift a 
fence and go under it, thereby breaching the cattle guard by an alternate 
method.  The district court found 
that the gates would either require emergency vehicles to drive through the 
gates, or to have to stop and open and close them.  The Allens attested that, on occasions, 
cattle escaped from White's premises when the gates were closed and, on 
occasions, did not escape when the gates were open.  The district court 
also made these findings:

 
      

            
12.  When a right-of-way 
easement is granted, a right of passage is given to the owner of the 
easement.  The owner of the servient 
estate, of course, retains all rights of ownership which are consistent with the 
[Allens'] use of the easement.  
These competing rights must be balanced to promote the enjoyment of both 
the easement and the servient estate.  
[White's] cattle, in search of food, escape from her land regardless of 
whether the gates are in place and closed and therefore a reasonable balancing 
of the parties' rights dictates that the gates are an unnecessary impediment to 
the [Allens'] right to use, maintain and control the 
easement.

            
13.  The [Allens'] use of 
cattle guards in place of gates does not materially increase the burden on the 
servient estate held by [White], however, opening and closing of two different 
gates each time one enters or leaves the dominant estate is quite 
burdensome.

            
14.  The [Allens] should be 
allowed to maintain in place their cattle guards instead of gates on the 
easement in order to improve their convenience of using the 
easement.

            
15.  [White] as the owner of the servient estate does not have the right to 
insist upon the usage of gates in addition to or in lieu of cattle 
guards.

 
     
                
       

[¶7]      The Allens' 
evidentiary materials included an affidavit from a University of Wyoming 
professor, stating that the cattle guards installed by the Allens were more 
effective at keeping the cattle in than were White's fences and met Wyoming 
Department of Transportation (WDOT) Standards.  We note that the WDOT standards are not a part 
of the record, nor are the relevance of those standards to this case readily 
apparent since neither of these cattle guards is on a highway or railroad 
crossing.

 
        
               
             
 

[¶8]      In her affidavit, 
White attested to the fact that she used the land which the easement traverses 
for grazing cattle, and that it has been so used since the area was settled by 
cattle growers.  White averred that 
the Allens placed the cattle guards on the easement without her consent.  White claimed that she informed the 
Allens that cattle guards would not suffice before they put them in.  When her cattle began escaping, White 
informed the Allens that the gates would have to be kept shut.  White asserted that her cattle escaped 
over the cattle guards from time to time and she attached photographs to her 
affidavit purporting to show some of those occasions.  In addition, White 
attested to the fact that she is under court order to keep her cattle contained 
or face contempt and/or criminal proceedings.

 
       
              
  

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
 

[¶9]   When we review a summary judgment, 
we have before us the same materials as did the district court, and we follow 
the same standards which applied to the proceedings below.  The propriety of granting a motion for 
summary judgment depends upon the correctness of the dual findings that there is 
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the prevailing party is 
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  
A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if proven, 
would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of an 
asserted cause of action or defense.  
We, of course, examine the record from a vantage point most favorable to 
that party who opposed the motion, affording to that party the benefit of all 
favorable inferences that fairly may be drawn from the record.  Central Wyoming Medical Laboratory, 
LLC v. Medical Testing Lab, Inc., 2002 WY 47, ¶ 15, 43 P.3d 121, ¶ 15 (Wyo. 
2002).

 
    

DISCUSSION

 

[¶10]   In Van Raden v. Harper, 891 P.2d 78, 78-79 (Wyo. 1995), we held that whether or not the substitution of 
cattle guards for gates on a right-of-way easement materially increases the 
burden on the servient estate is a question of law.1  In a dissent joined by Justices Lehman 
and Golden, it was concluded that such an issue is a question of fact.  Although it was surplusage as applied, 
we iterated our holding in Van Raden in the case Weiss v. 
Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495, 500 (Wyo. 1997).  Very recently, in Hutchings v. 
Krachun, 2002 WY 98, ¶ 18, 49 P.3d 176, ¶ 18 (Wyo. 
2002), we stated:

 
      

In 
Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d  at 500, we specifically held that the owner 
of the servient estate cannot impede the easement holder's use of the easement 
by the placement of a gate in lieu of a cattle guard.  Furthermore, Van Raden, 891 P.2d  
at 79, stands for the proposition that an easement holder's installation of a 
cattle guard is not an unauthorized increase in the burden on the servient 
estate.  Consequently, our precedent 
supports the conclusion that, in most cases, the easement owner has the ultimate 
right to decide whether gates or cattle guards will be employed on access 
easements.  Allowing the placement of a gate on the easement where it meets the 
county road by landowners prohibits the access and convenient passage of 
easement owner along the easement as expressly granted.

 
   
               
            
 

[¶11]   However, in the Hutchings 
case we were not confronted with a case involving issuance of a summary 
judgment, but rather with findings of a district court made after a trial to the 
court.  In addition, in 
Hutchings Justices Hill and Kite joined in a dissent, which asked the 
Court to disavow the Van Raden and Weiss decisions.  The dissent in Van Raden and the 
dissent in Hutchings are very much in harmony, and today we find 
ourselves obliged to overrule Van Raden with respect to its conclusion 
that the justification for the placement of cattle guards, in lieu of gates, is 
a question of law.  As a 
consequence, our reliance on Van Raden in the context of both 
Weiss and Hutchings is also negated.

 
   

[¶12]   The premise of our holding today has 
been summarized as follows:

 
      
    

            
Turning first to gates across a right of way acquired by grant, the 
general rule is that the grant of a way without reservation of the right to 
maintain gates does not necessarily preclude the servient estate owner from 
having such gates, and unless it is expressly stipulated in the grant that the 
way shall be an open one, or unless a prohibition of gates is implied from 
circumstances, the servient owner may maintain a gate across the way if 
necessary for the use of the servient estate and if the gate does not 
unreasonably interfere with the right of passage.

 
             
               
           
              
               
            
              
      

Daniel 
E. Feld, Annotation, Right to Maintain Gate or Fence Across Right of Way, 52 A.L.R.3d 9 § 2 at 15 (1973 
and Supp.2002).

 
 
         

[¶13]   The cases collected by the 
annotation establish that the factual questions to be answered in circumstances 
such as those presented here are questions of fact, which are not suitable for 
resolution by way of summary judgment.  
"[O]rdinarily, what may be considered a proper use by the servient owner 
is a question of fact."  Schold 
v. Sawyer, 944 P.2d 683, 685 (Colo.App. 1997) (citing United States v. 
O'Block, 788 F.2d 1433 (10th Cir. 1986) 
for the proposition that Utah law established that whether restriction on access 
to easement is reasonable is a question of fact.  Wykoff v. Barton, 646 P.2d 756, 
759 (Utah 1982));  Engel v. 
Gampp, 2000 MT 17, ¶ 50, 993 P.2d 701, ¶ 50 (Mont. 2000) (citing Garbriel 
v. Wood, 862 P.2d 42, 45-46 (Mont. 1993)); Marshall v. Blair, 946 P.2d 975, 982 (Idaho 1997).

 
  
    

[¶14]   Another recent case in point dealt 
with circumstances very much akin to those confronted in the instant 
matter.  In Watson v. 
Banducci, 973 P.2d 395, 401 (Or.App. 1999), a long-time rancher testified that, "cattle guards, 
in general, do not work effectively without gates:"

 
        
          

Any 
time [livestock] are crowded up close or if you wean calves or separate 
livestock that they will get in a position where they will try jumping them, 
sometimes they don't and they break legs, other times they jump them.  Horses are bad for just trying cattle guards because they get running and 
playing and they always end up in the cattle guard it seems like.

 
       
               
   

973 P.2d  at 401-402.

 
 
  

[¶15]   In that case, the servient 
landowner met his burden of establishing that the gate was reasonable.  As to the second 
question, whether the gates posed an unreasonable interference with the 
easement, the burden rests with the dominant estate owner:

 
       
           
    

In 
other words, plaintiffs were obligated to show that it is essential to their 
enjoyment of the easement that defendants not close gates B and C and not lock 
gate B.  Plaintiffs produced 
evidence that the gates caused some inconvenience to plaintiffs and persons 
visiting their property, in that they must stop, unlock, and open the gates to 
pass through, and then must reclose and relock the gates before proceeding.  Inconvenience of that nature, however, 
was inherent in the grant of an easement for a gateway road  that is, a road 
that would be gated in a manner consistent with the ordinary use of the 
surrounding land.  Because 
the easement expressly made plaintiffs' right to use the roadway subject to such 
inconveniences, they needed to show more.

 
  
            
     

Watson, 
973 P.2d  at 402.  In this case, the 
district court did make such factual findings, yet, at the same time, granted 
summary judgment.  Those findings 
included:

 
  

12.             
. 
. . a reasonable balancing of the parties' rights dictates that the gates are an 
unnecessary impediment to the [Allens'] rights to use, maintain and control the 
easement.

13.             
The 
use of cattle guards in place of gates does not materially increase the burden 
on the servient estate . . ., however, opening and closing of two 
different gates each time one enters or leaves the dominant estate is quite 
burdensome.

14.             
The [Allens] should be allowed to maintain in place their 
cattle guards instead of gates on the easement in order to improve their 
convenience of using the easement.

 
 
             
             

While all of these facts are relevant to the ultimate 
determination pursuant to the applicable legal standard, they were disputed and 
summary judgment was inappropriate.

 
 
             
          

[¶16]   In the instant case, the phrase 
"gateway road" does not appear in the easement.  However, the language used in the 
easement, which benefits the Allens, does not unambiguously prohibit the 
installation of gates.  Whether such 
gates are reasonably necessary to the servient estate, or constitute an 
unreasonable inconvenience to the dominant estate, are questions of fact to be 
resolved by the fact finder in the light of all the evidence that may be 
presented by the parties.  See 
Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 923 P.2d 313, 316-18 (Colo.App. 
1996) (citing Restatement of Property § 483 (1944))2; Gamburg v. Cooper, 642 P.2d 890, 891-92 (Ariz.App. 1982).  With 
respect to the construction of easements, see 3 Richard Ray Powell on 
Real Property § 24.03 (2002), and 4 Richard Ray Powell on Real 
Property § 34.12 (2001).

 
   

[¶17]   White contends that Wyo. Stat. Ann. 
§ 6-9-202 (LexisNexis 2001) creates in her a right to file a tort action against 
the Allens under the circumstances presented here.  That statute provides:  "A person is guilty of a misdemeanor 
punishable by a fine of not more than seven hundred fifty dollars ($750.00) if 
he opens and neglects to close a gate or replace bars in a fence which crosses a 
private road or a river, stream or ditch."  
This argument is not supported by cogent argument or pertinent authority 
and we decline to consider it further.  
GGV v. JLR, 2002 WY 19, ¶ 20, 39 P.3d 1066, ¶ 20 (Wyo. 
2002).

 
    

CONCLUSION

 

[¶18]   There are genuine issues of 
material fact with respect to the reasonableness of White's placement of gates 
on the easement, as well as with respect to the substantiality of the 
inconvenience posed by those gates for the Allens.  The order on summary judgment is 
reversed and the matter is remanded to the district court for proceedings 
consistent with this opinion.

 

FOOTNOTES

 

  1In so holding, 
we relied on Mize v. Ownby, 225 S.W.2d 33, 35 (Tenn. 1949).  That case does not stand for the 
proposition for which it was cited at all.  
Indeed, the opinion makes clear that the trial court took a large volume 
of proof.  The central concerns of 
that case were the effectiveness of cattle guards versus gates, as well as the 
reasonableness of gates versus inconvenience to easement holders, issues that 
appear to be alive and well to this date.  
Cooper v. Polos, 898 S.W.2d 237, 239-242 (Tenn.App. 1995).  The ultimate holding of the case was 
much the same as the cases cited in our discussion.  The Tennessee Supreme Court 
held:

The 
proof shows that the defendant's family used motor vehicles in going to and from 
their work.  The Court of Appeals 
gave defendant the right to install cattle guards, at his expense, according to 
the plans of the University of Tennessee.  
Defendant was charged with the duty of suitably maintaining such cattle 
guards, and if they become out of repair, or do not adequately perform the 
functions for which they were intended, complainant may apply to the trial court 
for a restoration of the gates, and defendant will be liable for any damages 
sustained as an incident thereto.

Mize, 225 S.W.2d  at 
35.

   2The 1944 
Restatement provided:

            
§ 483.  Factors in 
Ascertaining Extent.

            
In ascertaining the extent of an easement created by conveyance, the 
following are important factors

            
(a)  the circumstances under 
which the conveyance was made,

            
(b)  the fact that the 
conveyance was or was not gratuitous,

            
(c)  the use made of the 
servient tenement before the conveyance,

            
(d)  the use made of the 
servient tenement after the conveyance.

The 
Restatement of the Law Third, Property, Servitudes (2000), provides this 
guidance:

            
§ 4.1     
Interpretation of Servitudes

                        
(1)  A servitude should be 
interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties ascertained from the 
language used in the instrument, or the circumstances surrounding the creation 
of the servitude, and to carry out the purpose for which it was 
created.

            
§ 4.10   Use Rights 
Conferred by a Servitude

            
Except as limited by the terms of the servitude determined under § 4.1, 
the holder of an easement or profit as defined in § 1.2 is entitled to use the 
servient estate in a manner that is reasonably necessary for the convenient 
enjoyment of the servitude.  The 
manner, frequency, and intensity of the use may change over time to take 
advantage of developments in technology and to accommodate normal development of 
the dominant estate or enterprise benefited by the servitude.  Unless authorized by the terms of the 
servitude, the holder is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the 
servient estate or interfere unreasonably with its 
enjoyment.