Title: Van Raden v. Harper

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

Van Raden v. Harper1995 WY 28891 P.2d 78Case Number: 94-37Decided: 03/06/1995Supreme Court of Wyoming

Megg 
VAN RADEN, n/k/a Megg Shaw, Appellant (Defendant),

v.

Walter HARPER and Arian Harper, Appellees 
(Plaintiffs).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Sheridan County, John C. Brackley, 
J.

Lynne A. Collins and John 
Fenn of Yonkee & Toner, Sheridan, for appellant.

Hardy H. Tate, Sheridan, for appellees.

Before GOLDEN, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, TAYLOR and 
LEHMAN, JJ.

TAYLOR, 
Justice.

[¶1]      Appellant 
challenges a ruling prohibiting her, as owner of a right-of-way easement, from 
substituting cattle guards for gates on that easement.

[¶2]      We 
reverse.

I. 
ISSUES

[¶3]      Appellant 
presents the following issue:

Where an easement for a road has been expressly 
granted, can the owner of the dominant estate substitute cattle guards for gates 
installed by the owners of the servient estate?

[¶4]      Appellees agree 
with this statement of the issue.

II. 
FACTS

[¶5]      Appellant, Megg 
Shaw (Shaw), purchased a home in Sheridan County, Wyoming. The parcel of land on 
which the home is located is accessed via a right-of-way easement that crosses 
property owned by appellees, Walter and Arian Harper (Harpers). When Shaw 
purchased the home, there were two gates that crossed the easement. One gate 
exited into Beckton Hall Road and the second gate exited into a horse pasture 
used by the Harpers' son, Wayne Harper. Shaw replaced both gates with cattle 
guards. The Harpers filed suit seeking injunctive relief.

III. 
DISCUSSION

[¶6]      The issue 
presented in this case is whether the substitution of cattle guards for gates on 
a right-of-way easement materially increases the burden on the servient estate. 
This is a question of law. Mize v. Ownby, 189 Tenn. 207, 225 S.W.2d 33 (1949). 
Questions of law are reviewed de novo. Davidson v. Sherman, 848 P.2d 1341, 1343 
(Wyo. 1993). In construing the easement, we consider the plain language of the 
granting document in light of the surrounding circumstances. Bland Lake Fishing 
and Hunting Club v. Fisher, 311 S.W.2d 710, 715-16 (Tex.Civ.App. 
1958).

[¶7]      The easement at 
issue reads, in pertinent part:

Walter D. Harper and Arian C. Harper, husband and 
wife, GRANTORS, * * * grant and convey unto Neal W. Harper and Pamela J. Harper, 
husband and wife, * * * [and their] assigns and successors in interest, 
GRANTEES, an easement and right-of-way twenty (20) feet in width across * * * 
lands owned by GRANTORS and situate in Sheridan County, Wyoming * * 
*.

*           
*            
*           
*           
*           
* 

For the purpose of using the existing road which 
intersects the Beckton Hall County road and gives GRANTEE access to the 
following lands owned by GRANTEE in Sheridan County, [legal description of land 
Wayne Harper lost to foreclosure, now owned by Shaw].

IT IS EXPRESSLY UNDERSTOOD by the GRANTORS that this 
easement is given to the GRANTEES and their successors in interest upon the 
condition that the GRANTEES and their successors in interest shall be 
responsible for the [maintenance] and care of said access road * * 
*.

[¶8]      The owner of an 
easement cannot materially enlarge the burden on the servient estate or impose a 
new burden on the servient estate. Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 731 
(Wyo. 1976) (quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 72 at 478 (1966)). 
When a right-of-way easement is granted, a right of passage is given. Bard Ranch 
Co., 557 P.2d  at 730 (quoting Edwards v. Julian, 192 Pa. Super. 121, 159 A.2d 547, 549 (1960)). The owner of the servient estate, of course, retains all 
rights of ownership which are consistent with the use of the easement. Bard 
Ranch Co., 557 P.2d  at 730 (quoting 2 Thompson on Real Property 70 (1961 Repl., 
1976 Supp.)). These competing rights must be balanced to promote the enjoyment 
of both the easement and the servient estate. Bard Ranch Co., 557 P.2d  at 730 
(quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d, supra, at 478).

[¶9]      In Mize, 225 S.W.2d 33, the Tennessee Supreme Court considered whether the substitution of 
cattle guards for gates, by the owner of the dominant estate, materially 
increased the burden on the servient estate. Reasoning that the owner of the 
dominant estate has a right to maintain and improve the easement, the Tennessee 
Supreme Court held that the substitution of cattle guards for gates did not 
materially increase the burden on the servient estate. Id. at 35. Mize is 
directly on point and we adopt this reasoning as the rule in 
Wyoming.

[¶10]   The substitution of cattle guards 
for gates is logically consistent with Shaw's right to improve the easement. As 
the Mize court noted, opening and closing two different gates each time one 
enters or leaves the dominant estate is quite burdensome. Id. at 34. Further, 
substituting cattle guards for gates promotes the primary goal of the easement 
which is to provide convenient passage to and from the dominant estate. See, 
Salvaty v. Falcon Cable Television, 165 Cal. App. 3d 798, 212 Cal. Rptr. 31, 35 
(1985). We hold that the substitution of cattle guards for gates on a 
right-of-way easement is a permissible improvement of the easement and does not 
materially increase the burden on the servient estate.

[¶11]   Our holding cannot be squared with 
the district court's ruling that Wayne Harper established a prescriptive right 
to a gate on his horse pasture. Wayne Harper's demand for a gate is inconsistent 
with the use of the easement as we have defined it and is, therefore, precluded. 
Bard Ranch Co., 557 P.2d  at 730.

IV. 
CONCLUSION

[¶12]   The decision of the district court 
is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with 
this opinion. 

LEHMAN, 
Justice, dissenting, with whom GOLDEN, Chief Justice, 
joins.

[¶13]   I respectfully dissent from the 
majority opinion.

[¶14]   The majority 
states:

The issue presented in this case is whether the 
substitution of cattle guards for gates on a right-of-way easement materially 
increases the burden on the servient estate. This 
is a question of law. Questions of law are reviewed de 
novo.

(Citation omitted and 
emphasis added.) I disagree with that standard of review.

[¶15]   Whether the owner of an easement 
enlarges or imposes a new burden on the servient estate is a question of fact. 
Courts dealing with this issue, McBride v. McBride, 581 P.2d 996, 998 (Utah 
1978); Tanaka v. Sheehan, 589 A.2d 391, 396 n. 8 (D.C.App. 1991); and even Mize 
v. Ownby, 225 S.W.2d 33 (Tenn. 1949) upon which the majority relies, make 
reference to the facts in those individual cases. Review should be based upon 
the evidence; and when, as here, there is sufficient evidence to support the 
findings of the trial court, the result should be to 
affirm.