file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

No. 98-620 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 

1999 MT 198 

295 Mont. 409

983 P.2d 995

JAMES M. VAN HOOK and CHARLENE E. 

VAN HOOK,

Defendants and Appellants,

v.

TODD JENNINGS,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Fourth Judicial District, 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (1 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

In and for the County of Mineral,

The Honorable John W. Larson, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellants:

Quentin M. Rhoades, Sullivan & Tabaracci; Missoula, Montana

For Respondent:

Timothy D. Geiszler, Geiszler & Newcomer, PLLP; Missoula, Montana

Submitted on Briefs: February 11, 1999 

Decided: August 26, 1999

Filed:

__________________________________________

Clerk

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (2 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

Justice Jim Regnier delivered the opinion of the Court.

● ¶James M. Van Hook and Charlene E. Van Hook (collectively, the Van Hooks) 

appeal from the order of the Fourth Judicial District Court, Mineral County, 

granting summary judgment to Todd Jennings in this action to declare the existence 

and enforceability of an access easement. We reverse. 

● ¶The sole issue before us is whether the District Court erred in awarding summary 

judgment to Jennings.

BACKGROUND

❍ ¶Jennings and the Van Hooks own neighboring tracts of property located in 

Mineral County, Montana, which lay in Section 34, Township 19 North, 

Range 27 West, P.M.M. and Section 3, Township 18 North, Range 27 West, P.

M.M. Prior to 1965, both tracts, along with additional parcels of surrounding 

property in Sections 34 and 3, were owned by Roy and Virginia Leland. On 

September 1, 1965, the Lelands conveyed the tract currently belonging to the 

Van Hooks to John and Barbara Shaw. 

❍ ¶The conveyance of property from the Lelands to the Shaws was made 

subject to the following reservation of rights: 

(b) Said property is subject to a right of way for an existing private road 

which extends across said property for the purpose of reaching other lands in 

said Sections 34 and 3. The grantors reserve the right to use the existing 

private road, which crosses said property, for the use and benefit of Section 3 

and the S1/2,, [sic] the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 and the 

S1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 34, Township 19 North, Range 27 W.M.M., 

[sic] excepting the land covered by this deed, and for the use and benefit of 

the grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns in the ownership of said lands. 

The grantees shall have the right to use of said private road across other 

portions of said Sections 34 and 3 for the purpose of reaching their property. 

The grantees shall not block said private road at any point but shall leave the 

same clear for use by the grantors or their successors in the ownership of the 

land in said Sections 34 and 3 herein described. The grantors shall have no 

responsibility for the upkeep or maintenance of said private road nor any 

liability in connection with the use of said road by any person. Said private 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (3 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

road also may be subject to use for the purpose of reaching lands other than 

those in said Sections 34 and 3.

(c) The grantors further reserve an easement within 25 feet of the existing 

private road as now located across the property covered by this deed, for the 

construction of utilities in the future as may be desired for the grantors' other 

lands in said Sections 3 and 34 herein described. 

■ ¶Both parties agree that pursuant to the 1965 deed, Jennings possesses a 

right of access over a road which traverses the whole of the Van Hook 

property in a generally east-west direction (hereinafter, the Jennings 

Road). A dispute exists, however, with regard to whether Jennings' right 

of access extends over a road which T-intersects with the Jennings Road 

inside the Van Hook property near the southeastern boundary of the 

Van Hook parcel and runs in a northern direction beyond the Van Hook 

property toward the center of the southwestern corner of Section 34 

(hereinafter, the Subject Roadway). 

■ ¶This case was submitted to the District Court on competing motions 

for summary judgment on the sole issue of whether the 1965 deed 

between the Lelands and the Shaws provides Jennings with a right of 

way over the Subject Roadway. The District Court conducted a hearing 

and entered judgment in favor of Jennings. The Van Hooks appeal the 

District Court's denial of their motion for summary judgment and the 

entry of summary judgment in favor of Jennings. 

DISCUSSION

■ ¶Did the District Court err in entering summary judgment in 

favor of Jennings?

■ ¶We review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo.

Wendell v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 1999 MT 17, ¶ 9, 974 

P.2d 623, ¶ 9, 56 St.Rep. 73, ¶ 9. When we review a district 

court's grant of summary judgment, we apply the same criteria as 

that used by the district court. Wendell, ¶ 9. Summary judgment is 

proper where no genuine issues of material fact exist and the 

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (4 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

(c), M.R.Civ.P. All reasonable inferences that may be drawn from 

the offered proof are to be drawn in favor of the party opposing 

the summary judgment. Wood v. Old Trapper Taxi (1997), 286 

Mont. 18, 23, 952 P.2d 1375, 1381.

■ ¶In its Opinion and Order on Motions for Summary Judgment 

and Reconsideration, the District Court determined that the 

reservation of rights in the 1965 deed was ambiguous because, 

although the grant refers in the singular to an existing private road 

over which the easement would lie, the purpose of the grantors 

was to reserve as many means of access as possible to their 

remaining properties. The District Court concluded that in 

reserving an easement "for the use and benefit of Section 3 and 

the S1/2,, [sic] the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 

and the S1/2 of the NW1/4 of Section 34," the grantors intended 

to include the use of the Subject Roadway, because "[g]iven the 

topography of Mineral County in general, and of the specific area 

at issue, the benefit to Grantor can only be achieved from an 

interpretation which gives an expanded application to include the 

Subject Roadway." Therefore, the District Court concluded, "[a]

ccess in this rough terrain can only be accomplished by the use of 

a broad definition of 'road' to include the Subject Roadway, and 

as such this overall intent will override any limitation of the 

singular use of 'road' in the reservation." 

■ ¶A transfer of property is to be interpreted in like manner with 

contracts in general. Section 70-1-513, MCA. The interpretation 

and construction of a contract presents a question of law. City 

Council of Laramie v. Kreiling (Wyo. 1996), 911 P.2d 1037, 

1049; Redlin v. Redlin (N.D. 1989), 436 N.W.2d 5, 7; see also

Wendell, ¶ 10 (the interpretation of an insurance policy presents a 

question of law). A contract should be interpreted so as to give 

effect to the mutual intention of the parties as it existed at the 

time of contracting, so far as the same is ascertainable and lawful. 

Section 28-3-301, MCA. When a contract is reduced to writing, 

the intention of the parties is to be ascertained from the writing 

alone if possible. Section 28-3-303, MCA. 

■ ¶The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation if the 

language is clear and explicit and does not involve an absurdity. 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (5 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

Section 28-3-401, MCA. Where the language of an agreement is 

clear and unambiguous, the duty of the court is to apply the 

language as written. Carelli v. Hall (1996), 279 Mont. 202, 209, 

926 P.2d 756, 761.

■ ¶The same principles are applied in determining the meaning of 

an easement grant. Ambiguities in a reservation of rights in any 

grant of property are to be interpreted in favor of the grantor. 

Section 70-1-516, MCA. However, the breadth and scope of an 

easement are determined upon the actual terms of the grant. See 

Section 70-17-106, MCA; Bridger v. Lake (1995), 271 Mont. 

186, 191, 896 P.2d 406, 408. 

■ ¶We disagree with the District Court's conclusion that the 

reservation of rights in the 1965 deed is ambiguous because the 

reservation of rights over a single roadway conflicts with the 

grantors' intent to reserve as many means of access as possible to 

their remaining properties. A contract is ambiguous where the 

terms of the contract are susceptible to more than one 

interpretation. Carelli, 279 Mont. at 209, 926 P.2d at 761. The 

easement in this case is described as "a right of way" over "an 

existing private road which extends across" the servient tenement 

"for the use and benefit of Section 3 and the S1/2, the NW1/4 of 

the NE1/4, the NE1/4 of the NW1/4 and the S1/2 of Section 34." 

That the grantors intended to utilize the easement "for the use and 

benefit of Section 3 and the S1/2, the NW1/4 of the NE1/4, the 

NE1/4 of the NW1/4 and the S1/2 of Section 34" indicates the use 

to which the easement would be put, not the scope of the 

easement itself. 

■ ¶To determine the scope of the easement, we refer to the 

language in the reservation which expressly describes the rights 

being reserved, which is "a right of way" over "an existing private 

road which extends across" the servient tenement. The terms 

"right of way" and "an existing private road" are used consistently 

throughout the reservation of rights to describe the extent of the 

easement reserved by the Lelands. Had the Lelands intended to 

include all roads then in existence within the scope of their right 

of way, they could easily have done so by drafting the reservation 

of rights to read "rights of way" over "existing private roads." 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (6 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

This they did not do. 

■ ¶Moreover, the Jennings Road is: (1) "an existing private road"; 

(3) "which extends across said property"; and (3) may be used 

"for the purpose of reaching other lands in said Sections 34 and 

3." By itself, therefore, the Jennings Road adequately satisfies 

each of the criteria used to describe the easement. The inclusion 

of additional roadways within the scope of the easement is not 

necessary in order to give full effect to the language of the deed, 

but rather, would only frustrate the plain meaning of the term "an 

existing private road." 

■ ¶We hold that the reservation of rights in the 1965 deed is not 

ambiguous on its face, because the reservation of a single right of 

way over an existing private road does not conflict with the 

intended use of the easement to benefit the grantors' remaining 

properties in Sections 34 and 3. For these reasons, we hold that 

the District Court's conclusion that the grantors' intent "override

[s] any limitation of the singular use of 'road' in the reservation" 

was in error. 

■ ¶We further hold that the District Court erred in entering 

summary judgement in favor of Jennings. We therefore reverse 

the judgment of the District Court and remand this case with 

instructions that summary judgment be entered in favor of the 

Van Hooks. 

/S/ JIM REGNIER 

We Concur:

/S/ KARLA M. GRAY

/S/ JAMES C. NELSON

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (7 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

/S/ TERRY N. TRIEWEILER 

Justice W. William Leaphart, dissenting.

1. ¶I dissent. I would affirm the decision of the District Court. 

The express language of the 1965 deed refers to an 

"existing private road," in the singular. That reference 

conflicts with other deed language that describes the 

parcels benefitting from the roadway as being almost 75% 

of the entire Section 34 which was retained by the grantors. 

The Subject Roadway is the only means of physical access 

to much of these lands, including the northern portions of 

Section 34 now owned by Jennings as well the adjacent 

parcel of Section 34 now owned by Sigsby. 

2. ¶When interpreting written documents, the cardinal rule of 

construction is to glean the intent of the parties from the 

four corners of the document and not to focus on isolated 

tracks, clauses and words. Rumph v. Dale Edwards, Inc. 

(1979), 183 Mont. 359, 368, 600 P.2d 163, 168. The 

District Court determined that the overall intent of the deed 

was to reserve access to the grantors to roughly 75% of 

Section 34. Undisputed testimony was presented by 

Jennings regarding the mountainous terrain served by the 

Subject Roadway. This testimony constitutes "evidence of 

the circumstances under which the agreement was made or 

to which it relates . . . ." Section 70-20-202(2), MCA. 

Access to those portions of Section 34 in this mountainous 

terrain can only be accomplished by employing a broad 

definition of "road" so as to include the Subject Roadway. 

It was incumbent upon the District Court to construe the 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (8 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

reservation "in favor of the grantor." Section 70-1-516, 

MCA; see also Reichle v. Anderson (1997), 284 Mont. 

384, 389, 943 P.2d 1324, 1327 (noting that a grantor who 

reserves an easement retains the rights "intended to be 

enjoyed" by that reservation). I agree with the District 

Court that the intended purpose of accessing Section 34 

overrides any limitation inherent in the singular use of 

"road" or "right of way" in the reservation. 

3. ¶The Court implicitly recognizes that the "use to which the 

easement would be put"--to reserve reasonable access to 

Section 3 and the S1⁄2, the NW1⁄4 of the NE1⁄4, the NE1⁄4 of 

the NW1⁄4 and the S1⁄2 of the NW1⁄4 of Section 34--also 

defines the benefits intended to be enjoyed by the grantors' 

original reservation of that easement. As the Court puts it, 

the easement was intended "to benefit the grantors' 

remaining properties in Sections 34 and 3." However, 

because a "mountain ridge" separates the NE1⁄4 of the SW1⁄4 

from the remainder of Jennings' holdings in Section 34, the 

Court's plain language approach achieves an absurd result 

in that it denies the grantors' successor in interest, Jennings, 

reasonable access to much of the lands originally retained 

by the grantor and intended to be enjoyed by the 

reservation of the easement.

4. ¶"The language of a contract is to govern its interpretation 

if the language is clear and explicit and does not involve an 

absurdity." Section 28-3-401, MCA. In focusing solely 

upon the singular use of terms in the deed, the Court has 

cut off access to much of Section 34. In so doing, the Court 

has ignored the overriding purpose of the grantors' 

reservation of the easement--to benefit all, and not just part, 

of the grantors' retained lands in Sections 3 and 34. The 

District Court's resolution of this matter was the more 

reasonable: by construing the term "road" to include the 

Subject Roadway, the court gave the conveyance a 

construction in favor of the grantors necessary to give 

Jennings, the successor in interest to the grantors, 

practicable physical access to all of the parcels intended to 

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (9 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm

be enjoyed by the grantors' reservation of the easement. I 

would affirm.

/S/ W. WILLIAM LEAPHART

Chief Justice J. A. Turnage and Justice William E. Hunt, Sr., join 

in the foregoing dissent of Justice W. William Leaphart.

/S/ J. A. TURNAGE

/S/ WILLIAM E. HUNT, SR.

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/cu1046/Desktop/opinions/98-620_(08-25-99)_Opinion_.htm (10 of 10)4/9/2007 10:38:54 AM