Case Title: LINDLEY v MAGGERT

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: montana

Court: Montana Supreme Court

Date: 1982-05-13T00:00:00Z

Document:
NO. 81-366 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 CHARLES and KAY LINDLEY, AND DARYL AND HELEN HOLMES, Plaintiffs and Respondents, KURTIS add SHIRLEY MAGGERT, AND ELWOOD and DEBBIE KLEEMAN, et al., Defendants and Appellants. Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District, In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Peterson Law Offices, Billings, Montana For Respondents: Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, Stacey & Jarussi, Billings, Montana Submitted on Briefs: March 5, 1982 Decided : :,!.-.-i ! . ; ) \ " . - A Filed : M r . Chief J u s t i c e Frank I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d the Opinion of the Court. P l a i n t i f f s brought an a c t i o n i n the Yellowstone County D i s t r i c t Court seeking t o have the d e f e n d a n t s enjoined from i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e use of a roadway easement. The D i s t r i c t Court g r a n t e d judgment to p l a i n t i f f s and ordered d e f e n d a n t s t o remove a fence and o t h e r o b s t r u c t i o n s which hindered use of t h e easement. Defendants appeal. The easement involved i n t h i s d i s p u t e is l o c a t e d on land purchased by t h e d e f e n d a n t s from Sam Shimamoto. In t h e warranty deed conveying t h e land to Shimamoto a roadway easement was e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d by t h e g r a n t o r , Stephen Pinnow. In March 1980 Pinnow conveyed t h e easement to v a r i o u s land owners, i n c l u d i n g p l a i n t i f f s , who owned p r o p e r t y i n a t r a c t of land o r i g i n a l l y owned by Pinnow's f a t h e r . Disagreements over use of t h e easement followed. O n May 9 , 1980, p l a n t i f f s f i l e d a complaint seeking a permanent injunc- t i o n a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s o r d e r i n g them to r e f r a i n from o b s t r u c t i n g use of the easement. Defendants, along w i t h one a d d i t i o n a l p a r t y , then f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f s and the c a s e s were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t r i a l . The second a c t i o n was s e t t l e d by s t i p u l a t i o n p r i o r to t r i a l , so t h e t r i a l involved o n l y t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e i n i t i a l complaint f i l e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s . Judgment was granted t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s and t h i s a p p e a l f o l l o w s . The d e f e n d a n t s acknowledge t h a t t h e i r land is s u b j e c t to t h e roadway easement. However, they contend t h a t the D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d i n not determining whether p l a i n t i f f s ' use of t h e easement would burden t h e i r land t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than con- templated when the easement was c r e a t e d . The easement r e s e r v e d by Pinnow was an easement i n g r o s s n o t a t t a c h e d to land. T h i s type of easement is a u t h o r i z e d by s e c t i o n 70-17-102, MCA: "The f o l l o w i n g land burdens or s e r v i t u d e s upon l a n d may be g r a n t e d and held though n o t a t t a c h e d t o l a n d : " ( 5 ) t h e right-of-way . . ." Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case we d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e easement r e s e r v e d by Pinnow was both a l i e n a b l e and a p p o r t i o n a b l e . Whether or n o t such an easement may be a l i e n a t e d and a p p o r t i o n e d depends upon t h e manner and t h e terms of t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e easement. See Restatement (Second) of t h e Law of P r o p e r t y 55 492 and 493 ( 1 9 4 4 ) . The w a r r a n t y deed c o n t a i n e d t h i s language : "Reserving an easement o v e r t h e E a s t 1 5 f e e t of s a i d T r a c t f o r roadway purposes." There is no language i n t h e w a r r a n t y deed l i m i t i n g t h e g r a n t o r ' s r i g h t to f r e e l y a l i e n a t e and a p p o r t i o n t h e easement. Defendants were aware of t h e easement a t t h e t i m e t h e y purchased t h e i r l a n d ; t h e y had no r i g h t to b e l i e v e t h a t t h e easement would n o t be used. The owner of a r e s e r v e d easement may use it to t h e f u l l e x t e n t of t h e r i g h t r e t a i n e d . C i t y of Missoula v. Mix ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 3 Mont. 365, 214 P.2d 212. Defendants are a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s should not b e allowed to use t h e easement u n t i l t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e t e r - mines whether use of t h e easement by t h e p l a i n t i f f s w i l l i n c r e a s e t h e burden on t h e d e f e n d a n t s t land beyond t h a t con- t e m p l a t e d when t h e easement was e s t a b l i s h e d . It is t r u e t h a t no u s e may be made of t h e right-of-way d i f f e r e n t from t h e use e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e of t h e c r e a t i o n of t h e easement so as to burden t h e s e r v i e n t estate t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t than w a s con- t e m p l a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e easement was c r e a t e d . T i t e c a v. S t a t e by and through Dept. o f F i s h ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 634 P.2d 1156, 38 St.Rep. 1533. The problem w i t h d e f e n d a n t s t argument is t h a t t h e easement h a s t h u s f a r not been used and t h e r e is no e v i - dence of an i n c r e a s e d burden. T h i s Court cannot d e c l a r e t h a t t h e proposed use w i l l be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s e r v e d easement on t h e b a s i s o f s p e c u l a t i o n as to p o s s i b l e f u t u r e u s e s . T i t e c a , s u p r a . Af f irmed . C h i e f J u s t i c e