Title: HUTCHINGS v. KRACHUN

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

HUTCHINGS v. KRACHUN2002 WY 9849 P.3d 176Case Number: 00-285, 00-286Decided: 06/28/2002

April Term, A.D. 2002

MELVIN 
D. HUTCHINGS and

VIRGINIA 
L. HUTCHINGS, 

Appellants(Defendants) 
,

 

v.

 

MICHAEL 
S. KRACHUN, 

Appellee(Plaintiff) 
.

 

MICHAEL 
S. KRACHUN, 

Appellant(Plaintiff) 
,

 

v.

 

MELVIN 
D. HUTCHINGS and

VIRGINIA 
L. HUTCHINGS, 

Appellees(Defendants) 
.

 

The 
Honorable John D. Troughton, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellants Hutchingses:

LaVoy 
O. Taylor, Cokeville, WY. 

Representing 
Appellee Krachun:

Dennis 
L. Sanderson, Afton, WY.

 

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

 

LEHMAN, 
C.J., 
delivered the opinion of the court.  
HILL, J., filed a dissenting opinion in which KITE, J., 
joined.

LEHMAN, 
Chief Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellants 
Hutchingses (hereinafter "landowners") own land over which there exists an 
easement providing access to property owned by appellee Krachun (hereinafter 
"easement owner").  After a 
bench trial, the district court entered a Judgment Based On Findings of Fact And 
Conclusions of Law ("Judgment") and companion Order ("Order") ordering, in part, 
that the description of the easement in this case be reformed to conform to the 
centerline of the existing roadway.  
The court further enjoined landowners from blocking or barricading the 
right of way of easement owner because the easement owner had erected a cattle 
guard that complied with Wyoming Highway Department regulations where the 
easement meets the county road.  
Finally, the district court found in its findings of fact and conclusions 
of law that cattle guards are unsafe and inadequate barriers within which to 
contain horses.  Landowners and 
easement owner all then timely appealed the Judgment and 
Order.

 

[¶2]      We affirm in part and 
reverse, in part.

 

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      Landowners' 
issues are paraphrased as follows: 

 

1.  Do 
landowners have the right to maintain a gate in front of the cattle guard and to 
keep it closed when they have their horses in pasture?

 

2.  Did 
the District Court err when, it in its Judgment and Order, it stated:  "The description of the easement leading 
to the [easement owner's] property as described in the deeds from Bernard Larsen 
and Marcine Larsen to Roy Seaquist and from Roy Seaquist to [easement owner] is 
hereby reformed to conform to the centerline of the existing roadway as shown on 
the Plat prepared by Lloyd B. Baker?"

 

Easement 
owner sets forth the issues as:

 

I.  Whether 
a cattle guard constructed to State Highway Department standards is an 
acceptable substitute for a gate.

 

II.  Whether 
landowners of the servient estate may place a gate in front of the cattle 
guard.

 

III.  Whether 
the trial court erred in reforming the easement to conform to a resurveyed 
description of the roadway.

 

Easement 
owner further specified this issue, with which landowners 
agree:

 

Is the 
trial court's finding that all cattle guards are unsafe and inadequate barriers 
with which to contain horses supported by adequate evidence? 

 

 

FACTS

 

[¶4]      The easement came 
into existence in 1977 when a previous owner of all the property conveyed a 
parcel of property to a predecessor of easement owner.  The deed contained the following 
language with reference to the easement, which followed a pre-existing road used 
by the previous owner, to go to and from their pasture 
property:

 

Together 
with a perpetual right of way for ingress and egress for Grantee and his heirs, 
successors and assigns to and from Grantee's property to the county road, over, 
across and along the lands of the Grantors, to enter upon the lands of the 
Grantors, and said right of way is more particularly described as 
follows:

 

Beginning 
N 0°0' E, 462.0 feet from the W ¼ Corner of Section 15, T 34 N, R 119 W and 
running thence N 28°30' E, 280 feet, thence N 20°25' E, 280 feet, thence N 35°0' 
E, 190 feet, thence N 71°56' E, 160 feet, thence S 85°32' E, 103 feet, thence N 
67°0' E, 90 feet, thence N 69°50' E, 40 feet, thence N 78°40' E, 45 feet, thence 
S 75°20' E, 38 feet, thence S 89°0' E, 100 feet to the County Road and extending 
¾ rod each side of above described centerline.

 

The 
foregoing right of way is subject to the condition that said right of way shall 
remain a private road and shall be shared with the Grantors, and their heirs, 
successors and assigns, and shall not be fenced in by Grantee or his heirs, 
successors and assigns, unless permission in writing is given by the Grantors, 
or their heirs, successors or assigns; and further provided that Grantee may 
clear the snow from the full 1½ rod width of said right of way, throwing snow on 
the Grantors' lands on either side of said right of way for snow removal, and 
either Grantee or Grantors, or their heirs, successors, or assigns, shall have 
the right to construct and maintain a roadway over, across and along the above 
described easement right of way to the extent as may be deemed necessary by 
either party for proper access along said right of way for access to Grantors' 
or Grantee's land.

 

[¶5]      The predecessor 
to easement owner built a home on his parcel and improved the easement from the 
county road to his property.  A wire 
gate remained where the easement met the county road.  Subsequently in 1989, easement owner 
herein purchased the parcel.  In 
1990, easement owner removed the wire gate where the easement meets the county 
road and constructed a cattle guard. 

 

[¶6]      In 1992, 
landowners took ownership of the servient estate to the easement, which 
consisted of pasture land, and began to run a purebred quarter horse 
business.  In the fall of that year, 
a colt owned by landowners was injured by becoming trapped in the cattle guard 
allegedly because easement owner had plowed the cattle guard full of snow.  An agent for landowners then placed a 
chain across the cattle guard so horses would not get trapped in the cattle 
guard or jump over it onto the county road.

 

[¶7]      From the fall of 
1992 until early summer of 1998, whenever landowners had horses on their pasture 
land, they usually kept either a wooden pole across the county road cattle guard 
or metal panels in front of that cattle guard to protect their horses.  Easement owner would usually, but not 
always, remove and replace these items when passing either to or from his 
property.  During this timeframe, 
landowners had approximately five horses either injured or jump the cattle guard 
onto the county road.

 

[¶8]      As a result, 
landowners installed a metal gate in front of the cattle guard and kept it 
closed when they had horses on their pasture land.  This arrangement apparently worked well 
until mid November of 1998 when easement owner began to leave the gate 
open.  This led to landowners 
barricading the easement with a tractor.  
Further, since easement owner then went through a metal gate at the south 
side of the cattle guard to gain access to his property leaving that gate open, 
landowners also barricaded that entrance.  

 

[¶9]      This action was 
then commenced with easement owner filing a complaint, which was followed by 
landowners filing a counterclaim.  
Easement owner originally sought an order requiring landowners 1) to 
remove the gate and to not further barricade the easement, 2) pay damages 
for trespass, nuisance and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and 
3) pay punitive damages.  
Later, easement owner amended his complaint requesting that the court 
order a reformation of the easement to the location of the existing 
roadway.  The crossclaim of the 
landowners initially prayed that the district court order easement owner to 
1) close any gates placed across the cattle guard, 2) install a cattle 
guard that was fit for horses and to keep it in adequate condition for such 
purposes, 3) pay damages for trespass, destruction of property, and 
emotional distress, and 4) pay punitive damages.  The landowners then amended their 
crossclaim requesting that the existing roadway be moved from its present 
location and moved to that location described within the original deed and for 
resulting damages.

 

 

STANDARD 
OF REVIEW

 

[¶10]   A trial of this case was held 
before the court with the court issuing specific findings of  fact and conclusions of law.  The purpose of specific findings of fact 
is to inform the appellate court of the underlying facts supporting the trial 
court's conclusions of law and disposition of the issues.  Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, 
Inc., 861 P.2d 531, 538 (Wyo. 1993).  
While the findings of fact made by a trial court are presumptively 
correct, we examine all of the properly admissible evidence in the record.  Because this court does not weigh the 
evidence de novo, findings may not be set aside because we would have reached a 
different result.  Rather, the 
appellant has the burden of persuading the appellate court that the finding is 
erroneous.  Id.  See also Maycock v. Maycock, 2001 
WY 103, ¶11; 33 P.3d 1114, ¶11 (Wyo. 2001).  Findings of fact are not set aside 
unless inconsistent with the evidence, clearly erroneous, or contrary to the 
great weight of the evidence.  The 
definitive test of when a finding of fact is clearly erroneous is when, although 
there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is 
left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been 
committed.  A determination that a 
finding is against the great weight of the evidence means that a finding will be 
set aside even if supported by substantial evidence. Id.  See also Mathis v. Wendling, 962 P.2d 160, 163 (Wyo. 1998).  
Conclusions of law made by the trial court are not binding on this court 
and are reviewed  de novo.  Maycock, ¶12.

 

[¶11]   We most recently also recognized 
that an easement is defined as "an interest in land which entitles the easement 
holder to a limited use or enjoyment over another person's property."  Hasvold v. Park County Sch. Dist. No. 
6, 2002 WY 65, ¶13, 45 P.3d 635, ¶13  (Wyo. 2002)).  We derive the meaning of an easement 
from its language, much as we would in the case of a deed, contract or other 
written instrument.  Id; 
Lamb v. Wyoming Game & Fish Comm'n, 985 P.2d 433, 437 (Wyo. 1999).  In construing an easement, we seek to 
determine the intent of the parties to the easement.  If the language of the easement is 
unambiguous and if the intent of the parties can be gleaned from its language, 
that should be done as a matter of law.  
Hasvold, ¶13; Steil v. Smith, 901 P.2d 395, 396 (Wyo. 
1995).  Where an easement is claimed 
under a grant, the extent of the easement depends on the terms.  If the terms are specific, that is 
decisive of the limits of the easement.  
Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850, 854 
(Wyo. 1996).

 

 

DISCUSSION

 

The 
Cattle Guard

 

[¶12]   Although they do not raise it as a 
separate issue on appeal, landowners make considerable argument in their brief 
that easement owner's placement of a cattle guard that meets applicable state 
standards upon the easement places an inappropriate increased burden upon the 
easement.  Further, 
landowners argue that the holding rendered in Van Raden v. Harper, 891 P.2d 78 (Wyo. 1995), is not authoritative precedent that should be applied in 
this case since the facts sufficiently differ from this case than those which 
arose in Van Raden.    
They contend that Van Raden dealt with a general easement and not 
an easement subject to conditions.  
Hence, landowners assert that this difference is adequate reason why the 
holding in Van Raden is not controlling in this case.  We do not agree.

 

[¶13]   In Van Raden, this 
court held as a matter of law that installing cattle guards on a right of way 
easement is a permissible improvement of an easement and does not materially 
increase the burden of the servient estate.  891 P.2d  at 79-80.  In addition, we recognized that the 
easement involved in Van Raden was an access easement.  Similarly, we also noted that in the 
case of Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495, 500 (Wyo. 1997), wherein we 
subsequently recognized Van Raden, that such easement also involved an 
alleged prescriptive right of way or access easement.

 

[¶14]   Looking at the easement in this 
case, we hold the language used to be clear and unambiguous and that extrinsic 
evidence need not be considered in its construction.  The language used plainly expresses a 
solitary desire to grant an easement for ingress and egress or right of way to 
the grantee, his heirs, successors, and assigns to their land and, as such, 
constitutes an access easement.  
Similarly, the easement reserves the right of the grantors, their heirs, 
successors, and assigns to use the easement to also access their land.  Therefore, we see no reason why the rule 
of law espoused in Van Raden should not be applied in this case.  We recognized in Van Raden that 
the installation of a cattle guard promoted the primary purpose of the easement 
which was to provide convenient passage.  
This is likewise the case here.  
Placing a cattle guard on the easement by easement owner in no way 
prohibits access and convenient passage of landowners as reserved; therefore, it 
cannot be said to place an inappropriate increased burden upon the 
easement.

 

The 
Gate

 

[¶15]   Landowners further contend that the 
language used within the easement allows them to construct and maintain a gate 
on the easement where the easement meets the county road.  They argue that the language used within 
the easement that

 

[t]he 
foregoing right of way is subject to the condition that said right of way shall 
remain a private road and shall be shared with the Grantors, and their 
heirs, successors and assigns . . . and either Grantee 
or Grantors, or their heirs, successors, or assigns, shall have the right to 
construct and maintain a roadway over, across and along the above described 
easement right of way to the extent as may be deemed necessary by either party 
for proper access along said right of way for access to Grantors' or Grantee's 
land.

 

(emphasis 
added) confers upon landowners this right.  
Again, we do not agree.

 

[¶16]   As we stated previously, the 
language used within the easement is clear and unambiguous and expresses a 
solitary desire to grant an easement for ingress and egress or right of way to 
the grantee, his heirs, successors and assigns to their land and reserves the 
right of the grantors, their heirs, successors, and assigns to use the easement 
to access their land.  This 
language, however, does not give landowners the express right to place a gate on 
the easement where it meets the county road.  Rather, easement owner and landowners 
only possess the right to construct and maintain a roadway over, across, and 
along the easement for proper access along that right of 
way.

 

[¶17]   As aptly recognized by landowners, 
this court has previously stated that the owner of an easement and the owner of 
the land each possess rights and each must, as far as possible, respect each 
other's use.  Lamb v. Wyoming 
Game & Fish Comm'n, 985 P.2d  at 437; Edgcomb, 922 P.2d  at 854 
(quoting Steil v. Smith, 901 P.2d at 396).  Moreover, this court has stated that the 
rights of the easement owner and the landowner are not absolute but are so 
limited, each by the other, that there may be a due and reasonable enjoyment of 
both the easement and the servient tenement.  Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 730 (Wyo. 1976).  Landowners 
confuse their reserved right to access along the easement with the right to 
contain their horses within their land in conducting their horse business.  Simply put, the easement reserved them 
access and a right of way to their land as expressly described and nothing 
more.

 

[¶18]   Likewise, the language used within 
the easement confers upon easement owner a right of way along the easement to 
access his property.  This is an 
unfettered right which is unduly affected by the placement of a gate upon the 
easement where it meets the county road.  
As  recognized in WYMO 
Fuels, Inc. v. Edwards, 723 P.2d 1230, 1236 (Wyo. 1986): 

 

We have 
said that the owner of the surface estate and the owner of an easement each 
possess rights.  We have, however, 
accepted the proposition that the rights of the owner of the easement are 
paramount to the extent of the easement and include all rights incident or 
necessary to its proper enjoyment.  
The owner of the servient estate retains only such incidents of ownership 
as are not inconsistent with the easement.  

 

(Citations 
omitted.)  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.    

 

 

 

 

Reformation

 

[¶19]   Landowners further assert that the 
trial court erred when it reformed the easement to the present place where the 
roadway exists as opposed to the legal description elaborated within the grant 
deed.  They argue that there was no 
testimony elicited at trial that there was an error made in the description 
within the deed or that the road which was in use was several feet off of the 
granted right of way.  As a result, 
landowners argue that it was impossible for a prescriptive easement to have been 
shown since there was no proof of continuous and uninterrupted adverse use of a 
type sufficient to put the owner on notice of a claim of right under color of 
title.

 

[¶20]   Review of the Judgment, however, 
makes it clear that the trial court reformed the easement based on the theory of 
mutual mistake.  This court has 
previously set forth the elements of mutual mistake:

 

The 
essential elements of mutual mistake in a written instrument for which a court 
of competent jurisdiction may grant appropriate relief are that there was 
an antecedent agreement which the written instrument undertakes to evidence; 
that a mistake occurred in the drafting of the instrument and not in the 
antecedent agreement which it undertakes to evidence; and that in the absence of 
fraud or inequitable conduct on the part of one of the parties, the mistake was 
mutual.

 

Hansen 
v. Little Bear Inn Co., 9 P.3d 960, 964 (Wyo. 2000) (quoting Mathis, 962 P.2d at 164).  Further, we have recognized that while 
the general rule is that parol evidence is inadmissible when a contract is 
unambiguous, we make an exception in the case of mutual mistake.  Moreover, if a court finds that a mutual 
mistake exists, it may then cancel or reform the contract.  Hansen, at 964.  

 

[¶21]   In this instance, sufficient 
evidence exists that the intent of the original parties to the deed was to 
follow the roadway and that the original surveyor made a mistake when supplying 
the legal description ultimately used within the deed.  A neighbor who had lived near the 
subject real property for over sixty years, and who was familiar with the road, 
testified at trial that the easement road followed a pre-existing two track road 
that had been in existence as long as he could remember.  Another witness testified at trial that 
the original survey which resulted in the legal description of the easement and 
dominant estate used in the deed was performed by a local engineer who is now 
deceased.  He testified that the 
error resulted from using the wrong point of beginning and loose survey 
practices.  Easement owner testified 
that when he purchased the dominant estate in 1989, the road was already in 
place.  Easement owner did not know, 
until after this action was well under way, that the roadway did not run along 
the legal description for the easement as specified within the deed. 

 

[¶22]   Sufficient testimony was elicited 
at trial to establish in the record before us that a prior agreement existed 
between the prior owners to describe the easement within the deed where the 
roadway actually existed, that a mistake occurred in this endeavor, and that 
such mistake was mutual without fraud or inequitable conduct.  As a result, the trial court found based 
on sufficient evidence that a mutual mistake had occurred since the makers of 
the deed intended that the easement run where the roadway actually existed and 
thereby correctly reformed the deed as originally intended.  As we stated earlier, this court will 
not set aside findings of fact unless inconsistent with the evidence, clearly 
erroneous, or contrary to the great weight of the evidence.  Maycock, at ¶11; Mathis, 
962 P.2d  at 163; and Hopper, 861 P.2d  at 538. 

 

[¶23]   Finally, landowners cannot now 
argue that the trial court's reformation of the easement to where the road 
exists to be inequitable since one of the landowners testified at trial that he 
did not desire to have the road moved and that it would be better for the 
parties to reform the easement to the location where the road 
existed.

 

Findings 
of Fact and Conclusions of Law

 

[¶24]   Finally, easement owner argues that 
the trial court erred when it found in its findings of fact and ruled within its 
conclusions of law contained in the Judgment that cattle guards are unsafe and 
inadequate barriers within which to contain horses.   Easement owner argues that no 
evidence existed upon trial of this action that a cattle guard built to Wyoming 
Highway Department specifications is unsafe or inadequate within 
which to contain horses and, therefore, the trial court's similar conclusion of 
law is also not appropriate.  We 
agree.

 

[¶25]   Review of the record on appeal 
evidences much testimony concerning the inadequacy of the cattle guard located 
on the easement where it meets the county road to contain horses.  However, in fact, the only time that the 
issue as to whether or not a cattle guard built to state specifications was 
adequate to contain horses came during the trial when Mark Larsen 
testified.  When Larsen was asked 
whether he would prefer a cattle guard that was narrow so that a horse could 
jump over it or a wide cattle guard where a horse who attempted to jump over it 
would land on the cattle guard,  
Larsen ultimately testified that he would prefer a cattle guard that 
horses could clear.  He then went on 
to state without solicitation that he had seen horses jump over cattle guards 
built in compliance with state standards. 

 

[¶26]   This statement lacked any 
foundation and is speculative at best.  
Further, Larsen indicated that the particular cattle guard to which he 
was referring was not adequately maintained which could have added to the 
problem.  Finally, Larsen stated 
that horses are also known to jump fences and gates if they desired to do 
so.  Thus, we find that such 
testimony does not amount to credible evidence that a cattle guard built within 
state standards is unsafe and inadequate to contain 
horses.

 

[¶27]   As stated above, the definitive 
test of when a finding of fact is clearly erroneous is when, although there is 
evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with 
the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.  A determination that a finding is 
against the great weight of the evidence means that a finding will be set aside 
even if supported by substantial evidence.  
Maycock, at ¶11; Mathis, 962 P.2d  at 163; Hopper, 
861 P.2d  at 538.  Here, 
absolutely no credible evidence existed within the record that a cattle guard 
built within state standards is unsafe and inadequate to contain horses.  Accordingly, the finding of fact and 
underlying conclusion of law made to this effect by the trial court are 
erroneous and are stricken.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

[¶28]   The conclusion of the district 
court that a cattle guard which complies with applicable state standards is a 
permissible improvement on an easement and does not materially increase the 
burden of the servient estate is affirmed.  
The order preventing landowners from blocking the easement with a gate is 
also affirmed, as is the reformation of the description of the easement.  The finding of fact and underlying 
conclusion that cattle guards are unsafe and inadequate to maintain horses are 
erroneous and are to be stricken from the findings of fact and conclusions of 
law.

 

[¶29]   Affirmed in part and reversed in 
part.

  

HILL, 
J., dissenting, 
with whom KITE, J. joins.

 

[¶30]   
I do not agree with the majority that the easement in question prohibited 
a gate, or that the gate in issue "prohibits the access and convenient passage 
of easement owner along the easement as expressly granted," or that the gate was 
not reasonable and necessary given the undisputed facts of this case.  For these reasons, I respectfully 
dissent.

 

[¶31]   
It is undisputed that some of the landowner's horses were able to jump or 
otherwise traverse the cattle guard at issue, that if the horses got through the 
cattle guard, they would be in a county highway, and that some horses were 
injured in the process.  The 
majority appropriately notes that the easement provides that the easement holder 
may maintain a roadway to the extent deemed necessary for proper access.  However, the easement certainly does not 
imply that that roadway was meant to be absolutely unobstructed by a gate.  The two parties are required to share 
the roadway, or at least that portion of it which traverses the landowner's 
property, and that can be readily accomplished even with a gate in place.  After all, the properties are in rural 
Wyoming.

 

[¶32]   
The established law almost uniformly provides that a servient estate 
owner (the landowner in our discussions above) has all rights and benefits of 
ownership consistent with the easement.  
The grant of a right-of-way without reservation of the right to maintain 
gates does not necessarily preclude the servient estate owner from having 
gates.  Indeed, unless the easement 
contains language expressly prohibiting a gate, or the circumstances surrounding 
the grant of the easement make it clear that an open, unobstructed and 
unfettered right of access was intended, then the servient estate may maintain a 
gate so long as the gate is necessary and does not unreasonably interfere with 
the dominant estate's (in our discussion above, the easement holder's) right of 
access.

 

[¶33]   Furthermore, I do not perceive the 
cases of Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495 (Wyo. 1997) and Van Raden v. 
Harper, 891 P.2d 78 (Wyo. 1995), as requiring the result reached by the 
majority.  I believe that the 
majority opinion reads too much into those decisions, and it is my view that 
they are readily distinguishable on their facts.  To the extent they are viewed so as to 
justify the decision reached by the majority, I would modify our prior decisions 
to conform them to the vast majority of the cases which hold to the contrary, 
especially in a rural, agricultural setting.  See Daniel E. Feld, Annotation, 
Right to Maintain Gate or Fence Across Right of Way, 52 A.L.R.3d 9 (1973 
and Supp. 2001).

 

[¶34]   
In a rural, agricultural area in Wyoming, I do not see the gate at issue 
here as unreasonable.  Indeed, it 
appears to be clearly necessary.  
Although the district court's finding with respect to cattle guards may 
have been beyond the facts of this case, it seems clear from the uncontroverted 
facts that the cattle guard at issue was not effective in protecting the 
landowner's horses from injury, nor the traveling public from the dangers posed 
by landowner's escaped horses.  
Again, given the rural, agricultural nature of the lands in issue and the 
facts of this case, I do not see a gate as an obstruction or inconvenience, and 
it certainly does not prohibit access.

 

[¶35]   
A part of the district court's judgment is this:

 

            
2.  The Plaintiff's [easement 
holder's] request for immediate relief enjoining the Defendants [landowners] 
from keeping a gate across the existing cattle guard located next to the Lincoln 
County road is denied.  Provided, 
however, that if and when the Plaintiff erects a cattle guard that conforms to 
Wyoming State Highway Department standards, the Defendants are, at that point, 
enjoined from placing a gate across or in front of the cattle 
guard.

 

[¶36]   
I would modify that portion of the judgment to provide that the landowner 
may maintain a gate so long as the facts show it is necessary, and not an 
unreasonable interference with the easement, and remand this matter to the 
district court for any further proceedings which may be sought by the 
parties.