Title: BAKER v. PIKE

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

BAKER v. PIKE2002 WY 3441 P.3d 537Case Number: 00-322Decided: 02/26/2002

October Term, A.D. 
2001   

BRENDA BAKER, 

Appellant(Defendant) 
, 
v.

GARLAND PIKE, Trustee for 
the    

Pike Family Trust, 
Appellee(Plaintiff) .   
Appeal from the District Court of 
Laramie CountyThe Honorable Nicholas G. Kalokathis, 
Judge

Representing Appellant:Gregory A. Phillips of Mead & Phillips, Cheyenne, 
WY.

Representing Appellee:

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

[¶1] This case requires that we 
determine whether a 1904 deed created an easement appurte­nant, and not 
merely a license, on the disputed strip of land. Having determined that the 1904 
deed created an easement appurtenant, we affirm.             
            
            

ISSUE

[¶2] Appellant presents the statement 
of the issue:       

Did the District Court err in 
determining that the 1904 deed created an easement appurtenant, and not merely a 
license, on the disputed strip of land?             
            

FACTS

[¶3] The facts of this case are 
relatively simple and undisputed. This case focuses on a ten-foot strip of land 
(shaded area below) located on the northeast quarter of Block 259 in the City of 
Cheyenne. The southeast boundary of Lots 1 and 2 abut a city alley. In the early 
1900s, Lots 1 and 2 were realigned into three residential parcels fronting 
Seymour Avenue. This isolated the most southeastern lot (presently owned by 
Appellant Baker) fully abutting the city alley and the middle lot (presently 
owned by Appellee Pike) from the city alley and without street access to the 
rear of the property. In order to allow access to the rear of the properties, 
the landowners created a ten-foot alley (shaded area below) that has been used 
since 1904. The following representation, taken from defendant's exhibit, should 
be helpful in gaining a perspective of the layout of the land at issue. 
             
              
               
                 
          
           
              
               
             
            
            
      

[¶4] Pike is the trustee for the Pike 
Family Trust. The Pike Family Trust (hereafter "Pike") owns the middle 
forty-four feet of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 259, commonly known as 2018 Seymour 
Avenue. Ms. Baker owns the south forty-four feet of Lots 1 and 2 of Block 259, 
commonly known as 2014 Seymour Avenue. Thus, Pike and Baker are neighbors and 
the ten-foot alley exists across the western edge of the parties' property. The 
ten-foot alley continues past Pike's property to allow access to 2020 Seymour, 
but this portion of the alley is not at issue in the present appeal because it 
has been conveyed to the City of Cheyenne.               
               
             
                
              
           
                
             

[¶5] On September 2, 1904, Baker's 
predecessor in interest conveyed all of the south forty-four feet of Lots 1 and 
2 in Block 259, excepting that "[e]ach of the above named parties agree to 
maintain and keep open a ten foot alley on the west line of Lot Two (2)." This 
easement, as stated in the Warranty Deed, was binding upon "his heirs and 
assigns" forever. This property changed ownership six times between 1904 and 
1996 without memo­rializing the private alley in writing. Finally, Baker 
obtained the property in 1996, subject to "all recorded easements pertaining to 
the conveyed real property." Further, Baker's closing documents associated with 
the purchase of 2014 Seymour Avenue referenced an easement. Specifically, the 
title insurance policy addressed the existence of an "[e]asement, 10 feet in 
width, for alley on the west line of Lot 2, as contained in instrument recorded 
September 2, 1904."             
               
                
               
           
           
             
          
           
           
                
       

[¶6] Regarding Pike's property, on 
September 3, 1904, the middle forty-four feet of Lots 1 and 2 in Block 259 were 
conveyed with the identical exception: "[e]ach of the above named parties agree 
to maintain and keep open a ten foot alley on the west line of Lot Two (2)." 
Again, the Warranty Deed provided that the easement was binding upon "his heirs 
and assigns" forever. This parcel was sold in 1908 and 1911, each time with the 
written proviso that the parties "agree to maintain and keep open a ten foot 
alley" on the west line of Lot 2. When the property was sold in 1943, the 
language pertaining to the easement was removed. Subsequently in 1965, the 
parcel was conveyed to Pike's parents, again without mentioning the alley. Pike 
took title to the land in 1988, without mention of the alley; however, in 1999, 
Pike conveyed title to the Pike Family Trust "[s]ubject to covenants, easements 
and restric­tions of record."            
               
               
               
             
              
                 
              
            
             
              
         

[¶7] On November 5, 1999, Baker 
installed a permanent chain-link fence across the ten-foot alley that 
effectively denied Pike ingress and egress to his garage. Pike uses the alley to 
enter his garage and has a difficult time entering his garage from the north 
side of the alley. Prior to Baker installing the fence, Pike regularly used the 
southern entrance of the alley in order to enter his garage.            
            
              
              
              
  1 
 

[¶8] Pike filed a Complaint to Enforce 
Easement against Baker on April 14, 2000. On July 14, 2000, the district court 
held a hearing; the hearing was ultimately continued on August 31, 2000, due to 
concerns over Mr. Pike's health. On September 8, 2000, the Honorable Judge 
Kalokathis issued a decision letter finding in favor of Pike as to the easement 
issue and filed an "Order Enforcing Easement" on October 2, 2000. This timely 
appeal followed.              
              
             
            
               
         

STANDARD OF 
REVIEW  

[¶9] "The factual findings of a judge are subject to a broader scope of 
review than a jury verdict, and the appellate court may examine all of the 
properly admissible evidence in the record." R.C.R., Inc. v. Rainbow Canyon, 
Inc., 978 P.2d 581, 586 (Wyo. 1999) (citing Hopper v. All Pet 
Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo. 1993)). The findings of 
fact made by the district court will not be set aside unless clearly erroneous. 
Hopper, 861 P.2d  at 538. The district court's conclusions of law are not 
binding on the reviewing court and are reviewed de novo. Id.; Powder River Oil Co. v. Powder River Petroleum Corp., 830 P.2d 403, 407 (Wyo. 1992). Finally, the meaning of an easement will be derived from 
its lan­guage; if the language is not ambiguous and the intent of the 
parties can be determined, that should be done as a matter of law. R.C.R., 978 P.2d  at 586 (citing Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850, 854 (Wyo. 1996)).    
              
             
              
                
             
DISCUSSION

[¶10] The district court, while 
deciding in favor of the existence of an easement, failed to specify which type 
of easement existed on the disputed property. We now affirm the district court's 
decision, finding that the 1904 deeds created an appurtenant easement. 
             
            
            
     

[¶11] Generally, an easement is a "nonpossessory interest in land of 
another." Jon W. Bruce and James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and 
Licenses in Land §1:1 (2001) (hereinafter Bruce and Ely). An easement 
grants the holder the right to a limited use or enjoyment over another's 
property. Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500, 504 (Wyo. 1994). An easement 
differs from a license in that a license generally grants permission to do 
something on another's property. Bruce and Ely at §1:4. Since permission to do 
something can be easily rescinded, the landowner usually can terminate the 
license. Id. Alternatively, ease­ments are generally irrevocable 
interests in land. Id.  

[¶12] An easement is appurtenant "when the easement is created to benefit and 
does benefit the possessor of the land in his use of the land." Weber v. 
Johnston Fuel Liners, Inc., 519 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo. 1974); R.C.R., 
978 P.2d  at 586. This means that the easement must be created to benefit the 
owner of the easement as a possessor of a particular parcel of land. An easement 
is in gross "when it is not created to benefit or when it does not benefit the 
posses­sor of any tract of land in his use of it as such possessor. 
Weber, 519 P.2d  at 975; R.C.R., 978 P.2d  at 586. This means that 
the owner of the easement maintains ownership regardless of possession of any 
individual parcel of land. Finally, there is a strong preference to 
con­strue an easement as appurtenant rather than in gross. Delgue v. 
Curutchet, 677 P.2d 208, 212 (Wyo. 1984) (citing Weber, 519 P.2d at 975).     
 

[¶13] In R.C.R., this court identified certain "badges" of 
appurtenant easements: whether the language indicates it was created to benefit 
a specific parcel of land; whether the ease­ment creates a perpetual grant 
for ingress and egress; and whether the easement benefits the landowner in its 
use of the land and is not limited to a specific landowner. 978 P.2d  at 586. In 
the instant case, 2018 Seymour Avenue was isolated from the city alley and 
without street access to the rear of the property. The 1904 deeds contain the 
language "agree to maintain and keep open a ten foot alley on the west line of 
Lot Two (2)." This indicates that the ten-foot alley was not created to benefit 
any particular person. Indeed, the easement allows ingress and egress to the 
rear portion of the property, thereby benefiting the easement owner as the 
possessor of that tract of land. The deeds further state that the easement is 
binding upon "his heirs and assigns" forever. This language indicates a 
perpetual grant for use of the property that is not limited to a specific 
landowner. Therefore, the 1904 deed language can reasonably be construed to 
create an easement appurtenant.         
            
            
              
                
             
              
                 
             
             
            
              
             
             
           

[¶14] "An easement appurtenant is transferred with possession of the dominant 
property even if it is not mentioned in the document of transfer." 
R.C.R., 978 P.2d  at 586 (quoting Delgue, 677 P.2d at 212). The 1904 
deeds contain no language of limitation, rather they specify that the easement 
be binding upon "his heirs and assigns" forever. Thus, the ten-foot alleyway 
described in the 1904 deeds was an easement appurtenant that survived all 
subse­quent transfers regardless of any subsequent deed.       
            
            
            
        

[¶15] In 1914, this court decided a strikingly similar case in Forde v. 
Libby, 22 Wyo. 464, 143 P. 1190 (1914). As in the present appeal, the lots were 
realigned, isolating the middle forty-four feet from access to the alley or to 
the rear of the property. The parties orally agreed to maintain an alley, and 
subsequent improvements were made to the alley. The defendants attempted to 
close the alley, and the plaintiffs then sought to prohibit the defen­dants 
from obstructing the alleyway used by the plaintiffs to access their property. 
This court held "[t]he lots as rearranged were known and intended by the parties 
to be used for residence purposes without limit as to time, and it will be 
presumed that the parties intended the alley to be of as permanent a character 
as the use and occupancy of the lots." Forde, 143 P.  at 1193.      

[¶16] Appellant Baker distinguishes Forde on five distinct grounds. First, 
the owner of Lot 3, who was a party to the original agreement, claimed access to 
the Forde alley, whereas in the present appeal neither party was privy to 
the original agreement. Second, the defendant in Forde attempted to 
obstruct the alley even though his deed specifically identified the alley. 
Baker's deed, however, did not contain language specifically identifying the 
alley. Third, the Forde deed provided "a perpetual right of way of the 
owners for the time being, and their heirs and assigns." Id. at 1191. 
Baker's deed fails to identify and reserve a perpetual right for the alley. 
Fourth, the court in Forde relied on the fact that many improvements had 
been made and monies spent in reliance on the alley, whereas Pike failed to 
introduce evidence of any improvements made. Finally, the parties in 
Forde knew of the terms of the alley and were aware of 
the need for access for pulling coal. In the present appeal, no coal teams are 
currently required.                
             
 

[¶17] As to Baker's first and third 
claims, the 1904 deeds stated that the easement be bind­ing upon "his heirs 
and assigns" forever. Thus, the easement would be binding upon Baker and Pike, 
regardless of whether they were privy to the original agreement.               
           
             
     

[¶18] Regarding Baker's second claim, 
while Baker's deed does not make specific mention of the easement, Baker took 
title to the land subject to "all recorded easements pertaining to the conveyed 
real property." Further, Baker's closing documents addressed an "[e]asement, 10 
feet in width, for alley on the west line of Lot 2, as contained in instrument 
recorded September 2, 1904." Thus, while Baker's deed may not have contained 
specific language, Baker was on notice as to the existence of the private alley. 
Moreover, Baker testified that she knew that the easement existed at the time 
she took title to the property.            
              
          
             
             
             
             
               

[¶19] As to Baker's fourth claim of lack of evidence that improvements have 
been made to the alley, Baker herself introduced evidence that monies were spent 
and improvements made in reliance on the alley. Indeed, the photos contained in 
the record show that the alley has been paved. As to Baker's claim that the 
current parties no longer require access to the alley for purposes of pulling 
coal, Pike uses the easement for ingress and egress to the rear portion of his 
property. As previously discussed, the language of the 1904 deeds created an 
ease­ment appurtenant because the owner of the easement benefits as the 
possessor of the land-the easement is not restricted to a certain owner of the 
land. Finally, "the scope of an easement is not limited to the uses contemplated 
to be made at the time of or immediately after its creation." Edgcomb, 
922 P.2d  at 857 (citing Jones v. Edwards, 347 P.2d 846, 848 (Ore. 1959)). 
Absent contrary intent, the uses are subject to adjustment logical with normal 
development of the properties. Id. Thus, 
Pike's current use of the property is reasonable, regardless of the uses 
originally foreseen by the parties creating the easement.        
           
    

[¶20] Appellant then claims that the 1904 language created a license, and the 
question before the court is whether or not that license was revocable. In 
determining whether an easement or a license exists, the critical factor to 
consider is the parties' intent, identified by the manner in which the right was 
created, the nature of the right created, the duration of the right, the amount 
of consideration given for the right, and whether there is a reservation of 
power to revoke the right. Bruce and Ely, supra, at §1:5.    

[¶21] In the current case, the easement was contained in the 1904 conveyance 
deeds. Since the property was isolated from the city alley, the easement was 
created to allow ingress and egress to the rear portion of the property. As to 
the nature of the right granted, the deeds require "[e]ach of the above named 
parties agree to maintain and keep open a 
ten foot alley." (Emphasis added.) Further, the deeds provided that the easement 
is binding upon not only the current landowner but also upon all heirs and 
assignees.       
            
           2 Finally, the 1904 deeds do not 
contain a reservation of the power to revoke the right to ingress and egress. 
Thus, the lan­guage of the 1904 deeds created an easement and not a 
license.         
              
           
CONCLUSION

[¶22] The district court did not err in 
ruling that the 1904 deed created an easement, and we find the easement to be 
appurtenant.                
         

[¶23] Affirmed.   
FOOTNOTES

1The record indicates that Pike 
previously attempted to bar access through the alley by installing gates and by 
parking cars directly in the alley. These prior actions, however, are not at 
issue in the case at bar; Pike testified that all gates have been removed and he 
no longer parks vehicles or otherwise blocks the alley for any purpose. 
     
             
             
                
            

2Baker argues that the alley was 
limited to "above named parties." The entire deeds, however, are binding upon 
"his heirs and assigns" forever.