Title: Northwest Pipeline Corporation v. Jose Luna, et al. Easement rights

State: idaho

Issuer: Idaho Supreme Court (civil)

Document:

1 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO 
 
Docket No. 35469 
 
NORTHWEST PIPELINE CORPORATION, 
a Delaware corporation, 
 
       Plaintiff-Respondent, 
 
v. 
 
JOSE LUNA and ROSANNA LUNA, and 
their marital community and STEVEN 
CHURCH and ELIZABETH CHURCH, and 
their marital community, 
 
       Defendants-Appellants. 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) 
Wallace, April 2010 Term 
 
2010 Opinion No. 98 
 
Filed: September 7, 2010 
 
Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk 
 
Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 
Kootenai County.  Hon. Lansing L. Haynes, District Judge. 
The judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded. 
James, Vernon & Weeks, Coeur d’Alene, for appellants.  Susan P. Weeks argued. 
K & L Gates LLP, Coeur d’Alene, for respondent.  Brooke C. Kuhl argued.  
__________________________________ 
 
J. JONES, Justice 
Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest) holds an easement across the properties of 
Jose and Rosanna Luna, and Steven and Elizabeth Church (collectively, Appellants). The grant 
of easement was indefinite as to width. Northwest filed suit to obtain a determination of the 
width of its easement, to quiet its title to the defined easement, to obtain removal from the right-
of-way of any encroachments of Appellants, and to recover damages for such encroachments.  
Appellants answered, denying that they had interfered with Northwest’s easement rights and 
seeking a ruling that, if they had encroached, their encroachments had extinguished or partially 
extinguished the easement. Following a court trial on the issues, the district court determined that 
Northwest held a valid twenty foot easement across Appellants’ respective properties, and that 
Appellants had improperly encroached upon such right-of-way. The Appellants timely appealed 
 
2 
to this Court. We vacate the Judgment and remand for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion.     
I.  FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 
Appellants are the owners of real property located in a subdivision platted as Kellogg’s 
Fourth Addition, Post Falls, Kootenai County, Idaho. The properties owned by both the Lunas 
and the Churches were previously owned by Harold and Mabel Hodges. In 1956, the Hodges 
granted Pacific Northwest Pipeline Corporation (Northwest’s predecessor-in-interest) the “right 
to select the route for and construct, maintain, inspect, operate, protect, repair, replace, alter or 
remove a pipeline or pipelines for the transportation of oil, gas, or the products thereof,” together 
with “the right of ingress and egress to and from said line or lines.” The Grantors retained the 
right to use and enjoy the property, but agreed “not to build, create or construct or permit to be 
built, created or constructed any obstruction, building, engineering works, or other structures 
over or that would interfere with said pipeline or lines or Grantee’s rights hereunder.” However, 
the language of the grant does not set the width of the easement.     
The Lunas own Lot 4 of Kellogg’s Fourth Addition, which is bordered by Kellogg 
Avenue on the eastern side. The Churches own Lot 10 of Kellogg’s Fourth Addition, which is 
bordered by Kellogg Avenue on the western side. The easement at issue runs along the northern 
border of both properties.      
Elizabeth (Snyder) Church purchased the property, now shared with her husband, in 
1995.  At the time of the purchase, two blue spruce trees existed on the Churches’ property, 
which now stand twenty feet tall, with trunks approximately five feet from the pipeline. 
Northwest did not demand removal of the trees until June 2005. A chain link fence that runs 
almost directly over the pipeline was also in place. In 1999, the Churches constructed a detached 
metal shop in the back yard that is approximately fourteen feet and six inches from the pipeline. 
Northwest almost immediately contested the construction. In March 2006, the Churches 
constructed a lean-to attached to the shop. The support posts for the lean-to are set in concrete 
and stand approximately four feet from the pipeline. The southernmost edge of the lean-to roof is 
approximately fourteen and one-half feet from the pipeline and the northernmost edge of the roof 
is approximately four feet from the pipeline. Northwest objected to the construction by letter 
dated March 7, 2006.   
 
3 
The Lunas purchased their property in January 2005. A chain link fence that runs almost 
directly over the pipeline was in place at the time of their purchase. The northern wall of the 
Lunas’ house is thirteen and one-half feet from the pipeline. In 2005, the Lunas built a detached 
garage with support posts set in concrete. The northern wall of the garage is approximately six 
and one-half feet from the pipeline. The roof overhang of the garage is approximately four feet 
and eight inches from the pipeline.   
A high pressure natural gas pipeline was installed by Northwest’s predecessor-in-interest 
in 1957. Northwest came into existence in 1974, acquiring the property interests of Pacific 
Northwest Pipeline Corporation at that time. Northwest is an interstate natural gas company, and 
is thus regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) and by the United 
States Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 
(Department of Transportation). Northwest has internal operating policies and procedures 
implemented in accordance with the Department of Transportation’s Code of Federal 
Regulations (49 CFR Parts 190.1-199). In 2002, the Pipeline Safety Improvement Act was 
enacted, which, among other things, requires pipeline companies to implement a Pipeline 
Integrity Management Program. According to Tom Grant, a Northwest District Manager, this 
program means increased inspections, including the use of in-line inspections.     
Northwest filed its Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Ejectment, and Quiet Title on 
April 24, 2006. Appellants contested Northwest’s claim regarding the easement width and, in 
addition, asserted that the easement was partially or wholly extinguished by virtue of the 
placement of the encroachments. A court trial on all issues was conducted before the court, on 
August 20-23, 2007, and September 10-12, 2007. In its findings of fact and conclusion of law 
entered on November 23, 2007, the court quieted title in Northwest to a twenty-foot-wide 
easement over and across the northern boundaries of Appellants’ properties, ruled that various 
trees and improvements encroached upon Northwest’s easement, and made provision for the 
removal or amelioration of such encroachments. The court denied Appellants’ claims that the 
encroachments had the affect of partially or wholly extinguishing the easement. Appellants 
moved for reconsideration, which was declined by the court. The court entered its final judgment 
on May 16, 2008, from which Appellants timely appealed.  
 
4 
II.  ANALYSIS 
A.  Standard of Review    
“A trial court’s findings of fact will not be set aside on appeal unless they are clearly 
erroneous.” Farr West Inv. v. Topaz Mktg. L.P., 148 Idaho 272, 275, 220 P.3d 1091, 1094 
(2009). This Court will not substitute its view of the facts for that of the trial court when deciding 
whether findings of fact are clearly erroneous. Id. Instead, it is the province of the trial court to 
weigh conflicting evidence and to judge the credibility of witnesses. Argosy Trust v. Wininger, 
141 Idaho 570, 572, 114 P.3d 128, 130 (2005).  Therefore, on appeal this Court will examine the 
record to see if challenged findings of fact are supported by substantial and competent evidence.  
Id.  “Evidence is regarded as substantial if a reasonable trier of fact would accept it and rely upon 
it in determining whether a disputed point of fact has been proven.”  Id.   
B. The district court erred in determining the easement to be twenty feet in width.  
The Appellants raise a number of issues on appeal but most of them are related to the 
district court’s determination that the easement encumbers the northern twenty feet of the 
Appellants’ respective properties. That is, the Appellants claim that their various encroachments 
either do not impinge upon the easement or are compatible uses that do not interfere with 
Northwest’s easement rights. Further, Appellants contend that because of the placement of the 
encroachments and the passage of time, the easement has either been extinguished, in whole or 
in part, or that Northwest is precluded from asserting any rights under the grant of easement by 
virtue of the applicable statute of limitations. Because we find that the district court erred in 
establishing the easement width at twenty feet and because the court’s determination of the other 
issues is dependent at least to some degree on such easement width, we need only address the 
issue of the easement’s width. Based upon our holding that substantial and competent evidence 
does not support the district court’s determination of this issue, we vacate the judgment and 
remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 
“An easement is the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose that is not 
inconsistent with the general use of the property by the owner.” Akers v. D.L. White Constr., Inc., 
142 Idaho 293, 300, 127 P.3d 196, 203 (2005).  “An instrument granting an easement is to be 
construed in connection with the intention of the parties and circumstances in existence at the 
time the easement was given and carried out.” Argosy Trust, 141 Idaho at 572, 114 P.3d at 130. 
 
5 
When the grant contained in a deed is ambiguous, the deed should be construed against the 
drafter. C & G, Inc. v. Rule, 135 Idaho 763, 766, 25 P.3d 76, 79 (2001). 
A “grant indefinite as to width and location must impose no greater burden than is 
necessary.” Argosy Trust, 141 Idaho at 572, 114 P.3d at 130 (internal quotations omitted) 
(quoting Conley v. Whittlesey, 133 Idaho 265, 270, 985 P.2d 1127, 1132 (1999)). In Coulsen v. 
Aberdeen-Springfield Canal Co., this Court discussed indefinite grants in greater detail: 
The use to which a right of way is devoted, or for which it is created, determines 
the character of title with which the holder is invested.  The character of the use or 
the necessity of complete dominion determines the extent to which he is entitled 
to possession. No greater title or right to possession passes under a general grant 
than reasonably necessary to enable the grantee to adequately and conveniently 
make the intended use of his way. 
47 Idaho 619, 626, 277 P. 542, 544 (1929) (emphasis added).  In addition: 
A general grant of an easement is not restricted to the use reasonably required at 
the time of the grant. The use may be enlarged so long as the enlargement in use 
is reasonable and necessary, is consistent with the normal development of the 
land, and is not unduly burdensome to the servient estate.   
Argosy Trust, 141 Idaho at 573, 114 P.3d at 131. “There is a difference, however, between the 
enlargement in the use permitted by the owner of the dominant estate and the enlargement of the 
physical dimensions of the easement.” Argosy Trust, 141 Idaho at 573, 114 P.3d at 131. As this 
Court stated in Aztec Ltd., Inc. v. Creekside Investment Co., 100 Idaho 566, 569, 602 P.2d 64, 67 
(1979), “An increase in width does more than merely increase the burden upon the servient 
estate; it has the effect of enveloping additional lands.” 
While Northwest Pipeline presented evidence that a twenty-foot easement may be 
necessary for pipeline safety and maintenance under today’s standards, it failed to present 
substantial evidence of the parties’ intent concerning the intended width of the easement at the 
time it was granted. As plaintiff in this matter, Northwest Pipeline had the burden of 
demonstrating the intention of the parties to create a twenty-foot easement or that the twenty-foot 
easement was necessitated by conditions existing at the time of the grant. Argosy Trust, 141 
Idaho at 572, 114 P.3d at 130. On appeal, the district court’s finding of a twenty-foot easement 
must be supported by substantial and competent evidence. Id. 
The evidence provided by Northwest Pipeline came from three sources: the instrument 
granting the easement, the testimony of Northwest’s personnel regarding their current excavation 
practices and pipeline standards, and federal regulations concerning natural gas pipelines. This 
 
6 
evidence, taken together, does not support the district court’s finding of a twenty-foot easement. 
The instrument in question only provides that an easement was granted and is silent as to its 
width. Northwest’s operations manager, Tom Grant, testified that Northwest has guidelines in 
place that specify the width needed to carry out the purposes stated in the grant of easement. 
However, he was unaware of when the guidelines were adopted or whether they were in effect 
when the easement was granted in 1956. There is no evidence in the record that these guidelines 
or the concerns expressed in them were within the contemplation of the parties at the time the 
easement was granted. It is unlikely that the guidelines were in existence in their current form at 
the time the easement was granted because Northwest did not come into existence until 1974. 
Grant’s testimony also relied on federal guidelines regulating the natural gas industry to 
demonstrate that the pipeline width found by the district court was necessary to carry out the 
purposes of the easement. The reliance on federal guidelines suffers from the same deficiency as 
Grant’s reliance on Northwest’s own guidelines because they were adopted well after the 
easement was granted and there is no showing that they, or anything comparable, were in the 
contemplation of the parties at the time of the grant. Despite the fact that none of these guidelines 
were in existence at the time the easement was granted, they appear to provide the sole basis for 
the district court’s conclusion that twenty feet is a reasonable easement width, within the 
contemplation of the parties at the time the easement was granted.  
The district court’s decision regarding the width of the easement is primarily based upon 
safety concerns. In its initial findings, the court noted, “In the instant case, the need to specify the 
width of the right of way became acute and urgent with the 2002 enactment of the Pipeline 
Safety Improvement Act.” The court then concluded: 
This court specifically finds that Plaintiff has met its burden of proving that a 
twenty foot (20’) easement for the benefit of Plaintiff, on the south side of the 
Pipeline, continuing along the northern boundaries of the subject properties, is a 
reasonable interpretation of the Right of Way Contract and is the necessary width 
required for the safe exercise of Plaintiff’s rights granted therein. 
 
In denying the Appellants’ motion for reconsideration the court stated: 
With the enactment of the Pipeline Safety Act in 2002, the need to allow for the 
excavation of the pipeline for maintenance became acute. The safe installation 
and/or excavation of the Pipeline requires a twenty foot (20’) right of way. 
 
 
7 
Thus, the district court’s conclusion was mainly based upon safety concerns that were made 
“acute” by the federal Pipeline Safety Improvement Act approved by Congress in 2002. That Act 
was obviously not in effect in 1956 when the easement was granted to Northwest’s predecessor 
in interest. There is no evidence in the record to indicate what safety regulations were in 
existence at that time, as Northwest’s counsel admitted at the oral argument of this case. The 
district court erred in considering any requirements of the 2002 Pipeline Safety Improvement Act 
in determining the easement width.  
 
It is quite likely that Northwest’s predecessor in interest had concern about safety issues 
and took them into account in determining the necessary width of its easement in the vicinity of 
Appellants’ properties. Northwest’s predecessor in interest negotiated a variety of different 
easement widths with neighboring property owners, evidencing a rather wide range of widths 
determined to be acceptable from the pipeline company’s perspective. Evidence in the record 
indicates easement widths ranging from five feet on each side to thirty feet on each side, with a 
wide range in between—eight feet on each side, ten feet on each side, twenty feet on each side, 
seven and a half feet on one side and twenty-two and a half on the other, seventeen and a half 
feet on one side and thirty-two and a half on the other, and twenty feet on one side and forty feet 
on the other. With regard to the Churches, Northwest had expressed to the Churches’ attorney in 
February of 2000 that it was willing to “reduce its pipeline easement from 30’ to 15’ subject to” 
the parties entering into a written agreement. The Churches subsequently declined to enter into a 
written agreement but presumably Northwest would not have made the offer if the 15-foot width 
would have compromised its ability to safely operate and maintain the pipeline.  
 
Because the district court’s findings and conclusions are based primarily on safety 
concerns that did not become manifest until 2002, long after the easement in question was 
granted, and because there is no evidence as to what, if any, safety concerns were extant in 1956, 
we vacate the district court’s findings regarding the width of the easement across Appellants’ 
properties, which necessitates vacation of the Judgment as well, and remand to the district court.  
III. 
 
The Judgment of the district court is vacated and the case is remanded for further 
proceedings consistent with this opinion. Costs are awarded to Appellants. 
 
 
Chief Justice EISMANN, and Justices BURDICK, W. JONES and HORTON CONCUR.