NO. 95-429

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1996

LEFFINGWELL RANCH, INC., a Montana corporation;

and PECKENPAUGH RANCHES, INC., a Montana corporation,

Plaintiffs and Respondents,

v.

CARLO CIERI, JIM HUNT, and TERRY SARRAZIN,

Members of the Board of County Commissioners of

Park County, Montana; PARK COUNTY, a political

subdivision of the State of Montana,

Defendants,

and

ELK PARK RANCH, INC., a Montana Corporation,

Defendant and Appellant.

APPEAL FROM: District Court of the Sixth Judicial District,

In and for the County of Park,

The Honorable Byron L. Robb, Judge presiding.

COUNSEL OF RECORD:

For Appellant:

Karl Knuchel, Attorney at Law,

Livingston, Montana (for Elk Park Ranch, Inc.)

For Respondents:

Jeffrey N. Pence, Huppert & Swindlehurst,

Livingston, Montana
Justice Terry N. Trieweiler delivered the opinion of the Court.

On April 19, 1993, Leffingwell Ranch, Inc., and Peckenpaugh

Ranches, Inc., filed a complaint in the District Court for the

Sixth Judicial District in Park County in which they sought a

declaratory judgment regarding the status of Miles Creek Road and

the extent to which the defendant, Elk Park Ranch, Inc., could use

that road. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court entered

its judgment and decree in which it held that Miles Creek Road was

not a county road and that no public prescriptive easement had ever

been established over the road. The decree limited Elk Park

Ranch's easements over Miles Creek Road to their historical use and

specifically enjoined Elk Park Ranch from accessing its land

development over the road. Elk Park Ranch appeals the District

Court's decree. We affirm the District Court.

We address two issues on appeal:

1 . Did the District Court err when it determined that Miles

Creek Road was not a county road because no public prescriptive

easement had ever been established over that road?

2 . Did the District Court err when it limited Elk Park

Ranch's use of Miles Creek Road to its historical use and enjoined

Elk Park from accessing its land development by means of that road?

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Leffingwell Ranch, Inc., is a family ranch corporation which

owns real property in the Brackett Creek area of Park County.

Peckenpaugh Ranches, Inc., is also a family ranch corporation with

land holdings in the Brackett Creek area. In 1988, Elk Park Ranch,

2
Inc., purchased substantial land in the Brackett Creek area from

the Brackett Creek Grazing Association. In 1993, Elk Park filed a

quitclaim deed dividing its property into 174 20-acre aliquot

parcels. Elk Park's intent was to develop and sell these smaller

parcels. Elk Park planned to use Miles Creek Road, which crosses

both the Leffingwell Ranch and the Peckenpaugh Ranch, to access the

20-acre parcels.

Miles Creek Road leaves the main Brackett Creek Road at a

point on the Leffingwell Ranch and continues in a westerly

direction for approximately one-quarter mile to the Leffingwell

Ranch compound. The road then turns south and crosses Brackett

Creek and continues across the northeast corner of the Peckenpaugh

Ranch. As it leaves the Peckenpaugh Ranch, the road forks and one

branch returns northeast to the Leffingwell Ranch; the other branch

continues southeast into Elk Park Ranch's property.

Miles Creek Road was originally developed by James Proffitt,

J.W. Camp, James Curdy, and Jim Christie during the late 1890s as

an access route to their homesteads. In 1904, Mary Leffingwell's

father, Charles Bridgman, purchased what is now the Leffingwell

Ranch from James Proffitt. In 1927, Bridgman granted a private

easement over Miles Creek Road to J.W. Camp and James Curdy. James

Curdy, in turn, granted a similar easement to J.W. Camp. Both

easements granted rights-of-way thirty feet in width over the

existing road for purposes of ingress and egress and required that

the rights-of-way not be fenced, that any gates in place across the

grantor's property be kept closed at all times, and that the

3
failure to do so would result in the loss of the easements. Camp

was a predecessor in interest to Elk Park. However, when the

easements were executed in 1927 they were only intended to benefit

the small portion of land owned at that time by Camp and Curdy.

The property that Elk Park now intends to access includes several

additional sections of land which were acquired after the easements

were conveyed in 1927.

The Bridgmans rerouted the lower portion of Miles Creek Road

in the early 1930s through what is now the Leffingwell Ranch

compound. For the most part, the Leffingwells maintained the road,

although in the spring of 1948 Park County repaired the bridge on

Miles Creek Road across Brackett Creek in exchange for gravel from

the Leffingwell Ranch property. In the late 1970s a private

logging company rebuilt this same bridge with the Leffingwell's

permission.

County road records indicate nominal expenditures for Miles

Creek Road during the years 1953 and 1954. Although County road

crews sometimes plowed the road up to the Leffingwells' buildings

during the 1950s and 196Os, the plowing was done out of courtesy

rather than as part of an official road maintenance program. The

County ceased all work on the road by 1968.

Both the Leffingwells and the Peckenpaughs have always

maintained gates on Miles Creek Road. Although at times they have

given permission to members of the public to travel over the road

for access to Forest Service land for recreational purposes or

hunting, at least one of the gates located on the Leffingwell Ranch

4
has been regularly locked, particularly during hunting season,

since the early 1950s. All of the owners and parties in interest

in that area, including Elk Park Ranch, have maintained separate

locks on various gates on Miles Creek Road.

In 1972, a group of local hunters and sportsmen tried to have

Miles Creek Road opened for access as a public road. After

conducting a hearing, the Park County Commissioners concluded that

the road was private. This position was reaffirmed in 1988 by the

Park County Attorney in a letter to the local title company. In

his letter, the County Attorney stated:

My conclusion at this time is that it would be very

difficult for Park County to maintain that [Miles Creek

Road] is a public road. The records at the court house

only show that it was maintained at various times, but a

finding by past commissioners that it was a private road

indicates Park County never intended to assert control

over it. From the facts presented to me, it is not clear

that a prescriptive right was ever established on the

road. Even if that is established, it appears it may

well have been abandoned.

However, in a letter to the Leffingwell Ranch in 1993, the County

Attorney reversed his position and advised the Leffingwells that

the Park County Commissioners had decided that the road was in fact

a county road and that the Leffingwells could no longer maintain a

gate across it.

In response to the County Attorney's 1993 letter, both the

Leffingwell Ranch and the Peckenpaugh Ranch filed this action in

the Sixth Judicial District Court. In their complaint, the

plaintiffs alleged that Miles Creek Road is a private road to which

Park County has no right or interest; that any attempt by Elk Park

5
to access its planned development by means of Miles Creek Road

would be in derogation of the intention and contemplation of the

original 1927 agreements and would result in an overburdening of

the easements; and that any attempt by Elk Park to access land not

contemplated by the 1927 easements for any purposes other than for

agricultural purposes would constitute a misuse of the easements.

Following a hearing, the District Court entered its judgment

and decree. The Court concluded that Park County has no legal

right or interest in Miles Creek Road; that no prescriptive

easement has ever been established over the road; and that the 1927

easements were created and remain solely for the purpose of ingress

and egress for agricultural purposes. The court permanently

enjoined Elk Park from accessing its property by means of Miles

Creek Road for development purposes or for anything other than

agricultural purposes. The court further enjoined Elk Park Ranch

from accessing that portion of its properties which were not

contemplated by the 1927 easements and to which the 1927 easements

are not appurtenant.

ISSUE 1

Did the District Court err when it determined that Miles Creek

Road was not a county road because no public prescriptive easement

had ever been established over that road?

We review a district court's findings of fact to determine

whether they are clearly erroneous. Rule 52(a), M.R.Civ.P. See also

Dainesv. Knight (1995), 269 Mont. 320, 324, 888 P.2d 904, 906. We

6
review a district court's conclusions of law to determine whether

the court's interpretation of the law is correct. Carbon County v. Union

ReserveCoalCo. (1995), 271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686.

In order to establish an easement by prescription, the party

claiming the easement "must show open, notorious, exclusive,

adverse, continuous and uninterrupted use of the easement claimed

for the full statutory period." Public Lands Access Assoc. v. Boone & Crockett

ClubFoundation (1993), 259 Mont. 279, 283, 856 P.2d 525, 527 (quoting

Keeblerv. Harding (1991), 247 Mont. 518, 521, 807 P.2d 1354, 1356).

Since 1953, the statutory period has been five years. Section

70-19-404, MCA. Prior to that time the statutory period was ten

years. Section 93-2507, RCM (1947). The burden is on the party

seeking to establish the prescriptive easement to prove all

elements of prescription. PublicLandsAccess, 259 Mont. at 283, 856

P.2d at 527.

In this case, Elk Park Ranch contends that the District Court

erred when it concluded that a public prescriptive easement had not

been established over Miles Creek Road. Elk Park maintains that

the public's use of Miles Creek Road for recreational and other

purposes was adverse and was not by permission of the underlying

landowners. Elk Park further maintains that there was an

assumption of control of the road by Park County, which performed

maintenance of the road in a continuous and uninterrupted manner

for at least twelve years.
It is well-established that when permissive use is shown, an

easement cannot be established since prescription is based on

adverse use. Tannerv.DreamIsland,Inc. (Mont. 1996), 913 P.2d 641, 648,

53 St. Rep. 208, 212.

George Leffingwell testified that in the 1960s he personally

gave permission to agents of the Forest Service to access the

Bangtail Ranger Station and to Montana State University to access

a weather station it had established in the Bangtail area. John

Hamm, a local rancher and a member of the Brackett Creek Grazing

Association, which owned Elk Park's property from 1965 to 1988,

testified that he has always obtained permission from the

Leffingwells to access Forest Service land over Miles Creek Road.

In addition, Sue Ward, who owned Elk Park's property from 1951 to

1964, testified that she obtained permission from the Leffingwells

on a yearly basis to use Miles Creek Road to access her property.

Although at times the Leffingwells did let other members of

the public use the road with their permission to access Forest

Service land, George Leffingwell testified that he and his brother

sometimes denied permission to recreationalists who sought access

to public lands over Miles Creek Road. In addition to these

explicit denials of access, there was evidence that the

Leffingwells and the Peckenpaughs restricted access to Miles Creek

Road with locked gates, private road signs, no trespassing signs,

and orange painted posts.

8
Testimony at trial established that even Elk Park treated

Miles Creek Road as a private road and denied access to members of

the public. In fact, in 1989 one of Elk Park's officers put a lock

on one of the gates on Miles Creek Road because he had a hunting

camp set up on Canyon Creek and did not want other hunters entering

the area. As the District Court stated in its findings of fact:

"It is grossly inconsistent for . . . Elk Park to contend they

could so lock up the Miles Creek Road for their own use and

purposes, and now contend it is a public road."

In Descheemaekerv.Anderson (1957), 131 Mont. 322, 325-26, 310 P.2d

507, 589, we held that to establish a public right-of-way by

prescription

the evidence must be convincing that the public have

pursued a definite, fixed course, continuously and

uninterruptedly, and coupled it with an assumption of

control and right of use adversely under a claim or color

of right, and not merely by the owner's permission, over

it for the statutory period . . .

Plaintiffs produced substantial credible evidence that use of Miles

Creek Road by members of the public was with their permission.

However, Elk Park contends that Park County's maintenance of the

road, which was "by the public and for public good," is sufficient

to demonstrate the elements of prescription. Elk Park maintains

that the County's occasional acts of grading and plowing the road

are adequate to establish Miles Creek Road as a public road.

This Court has held that adverse use by the public combined

with the grading and maintaining of a road without the landowner's

permission is sufficient to establish adverse control. Rasmussen v.

9
Fowler (19901, 245 Mont. 308, 312, 800 P.2d 1053, 1056; McClurg v.

FlatheadCountyComm’rs (1980), 188 Mont. 20, 24, 610 P.2d 1153, 1156.

For example, in McClurg, we determined that a public prescriptive

easement existed when most members of the public had never asked

for permission to use the road and when the County had graded,

graveled, and performed maintenance on the road for a period in

excess of twenty-five years. McClurg, 188 Mont. 20, 610 P.Zd 1153.

In this case, however, the testimony at trial established that

most of the limited work which Park County performed on Miles Creek

Road was based on courtesy and cooperation with the local ranchers

and not because of public duty. In addition, the testimony

established that any work which was performed was not part of any

regularly scheduled maintenance program and ceased after 1968.

Clarence Curdy lived on Miles Creek Road from 1918 until 1936.

He testified that the Camps and the Curdys maintained the road with

a horse-pulled drag during that period. He further testified that

he never saw the County perform any kind of maintenance on the road

in those years. Russell Bridgman, who lived on the Leffingwell

Ranch on and off from 1912 until 1940 confirmed Curdy's testimony.

He testified that he had never seen Park County road crews on the

road past the Leffingwell Ranch compound during that time.

Mary Leffingwell, who has lived on the Leffingwell Ranch since

1914, testified that in the early years local residents maintained

Miles Creek Road. In later years, the Park County road crews would

10
grade the road on their way to the Leffingwell Ranch to "warm up

and use the telephone or borrow equipment or use the shop."

George Leffingwell testified that in 1948 or 1949 the County

replaced the bridge over Brackett Creek near the Leffingwell Ranch

compound in exchange for gravel from the ranch. At the hearing,

George did not recall that Park County had ever performed any

regular maintenance or repair work on Miles Creek Road, although he

stated that at times members of the county road crews would run the

snowplow as a courtesy into the Leffingwell Ranch compound. In

addition, George testified that in 1959, when he was driving a

truck for the County, he was permitted to take some gravel home to

gravel a portion of Miles Creek Road. In exchange, George

permitted Park County to take rock and gravel from the Leffingwell

Ranch without charge. George used his own ranch equipment to

spread the gravel.

Sue Ward, who owned Elk Park's property from 1951 to 1964,

testified that at one time she and her husband Ted had asked the

County to repair Miles Creek Road, but the County had refused

because "it wasn't in their territory." The Wards lived in the

Brackett Creek area from 1947 until 1974. Sue Ward testified that

she had not seen any Park County road crews on Miles Creek Road

during that time.

Kiel Peckenpaugh testified that he hauled calcite from a local

mine to improve the Peckenpaugh's portion of the road and hired

private crews to work on the road. He testified that he had not

seen Park County crews working on the road.

11
Robert Youngberg, who was Park County road foreman from 1968

until 1989, testified that the County did not perform any work on

Miles Creek Road after 1968. He said that prior to that time the

County had occasionally bladed or plowed the road but he

acknowledged that it was common practice in his early years with

the County to plow out ranchers' private lanes as a courtesy.

Although Youngberg testified that Miles Creek Road had been

designated a county road (56B) on the official county road maps,

there was no evidence that anyone had ever petitioned for the

establishment of Miles Creek Road or attempted to dedicate the road

to the public.

The District Court reviewed testimony offered by the

defendants at trial and found that:

[Elven assuming the defense testimony to be true, it is

far from sufficient to prove that the Miles Creek road

had ever become a public road by statutory petition and

process, or by deed, dedication, condemnation or

prescription, and it was far from sufficient to offset or

overcome the overwhelming evidence presented by

plaintiffs.

Based on our review of the record, we hold that the District

Court's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and

are not clearly erroneous. We therefore affirm the District

Court's conclusion that the public has never established a

prescriptive easement over Miles Creek Road and has no right to

travel over the road without permission of the adjacent landowners.

12
ISSUE 2

Did the District Court err when it limited Elk Park Ranch's

use of Miles Creek Road to its historical use and enjoined Elk Park

from accessing its land development by means of that road?

As stated above, our review of a district court's findings of

fact and conclusions of law is two-fold. We review a district

court's findings of fact to determine whether they are clearly

erroneous; we review a district court's conclusions of law to

determine whether they are correct. Dainesv.Knight (1995), 269 Mont.

320, 324, 888 P.2d 904, 9 0 6 ; Carbon County v. Union Reserve Coal Co. ( 19 9 5 ) ,

271 Mont. 459, 469, 898 P.2d 680, 686.

In this case, the easements over Miles Creek Road were created

by general warranty deeds in 1927 and provided for ingress and

egress to the Camp and Curdy homesteads. The easements further

required that the rights-of-way not be fenced and that any gates in

place across the grantor's property be kept closed at all times.

The general warranty deeds provided that abuse of the terms of the

easements would result in the loss of the easements. Based on the

terms of the easements and the historical use of the easements, the

District Court concluded that:

[Alny expansion or inconsistent uses of the easements

created by the 1927 warranty deeds would constitute an

overburdening of these easements, and therefore would be

in derogation of the common law and section 70-17-106,

MCA, and defendants should be enjoined therefrom.

Section 70-17-106, MCA, provides that: "The extent of a

servitude is determined by the terms of the grant or the nature of

13
the enjoyment by which it was acquired." In this case, the

warranty deeds which created the 1927 easements did not

specifically set forth the extent of the easements other than to

provide that the Camps and the Curdys could use Miles Creek Road

for "ingress and egress." However, as we stated in Stmhan v. Bush

(1989), 237 Mont. 265, 268, 773 P.2d 718, 720:

If the easement is not specifically defined, it need

only be such as is reasonably necessary and convenient

for the purpose for which it was created. It is

sometimes held . . . where the grant or reservation of an

easement is general in its terms, that an exercise of the

right, with the acquiescence and consent of both parties,

in a particular course or manner, fixes the right and

limits it to that particular course or manner.

In this case, Miles Creek Road and the 1927 easements have

never been used to access more than two or three homesteads and

have only been employed for related agricultural purposes. When

the road was established in the 188Os, it was probably no more than

a horse or wagon trail to the early Camp, Curdy, and Christie

homesteads. When the easements were conveyed in 1927 only the

Camps, Curdys, and Bridgmans lived on the road, and all of them

made their living from agricultural pursuits. Thus, at the time

the easements were granted, the "ingress and egress" set forth by

the terms of the general warranty deeds clearly did not contemplate

anything more than limited access by the Camps and the Curdys to

their property for agricultural purposes. In addition, the written

requirement that the gates be kept closed and the right-of-way not

be fenced is evidence of the fact that the parties did not

contemplate substantial traffic or intend that the easements could

14
be enlarged. As we stated in Lindleyv. Maggert (1982), 198 Mont. 197,

199, 645 P.2d 430, 432:

[Nlo use may be made of the right-of-way different from

the use established at the time of the creation of the

easement so as to burden the servient estate to a greater

extent than was contemplated at the time the easement was

created.

In this case, Elk Park has divided its property into 174

parcels and has indicated that it intends to resell the individual

parcels for development. Elk Park has further indicated that it

intends to access the developments by means of Miles Creek Road.

As a result, 174 families would use Miles Creek Road, which travels

directly though the Leffingwell Ranch compound, for ingress and

egress to their homes. AS the District Court noted in its findings

of fact:

A very significant factor in this case is that Miles

Creek road runs right through the Leffingwell Ranch and

building compound and that they not only have had a

family cattle business there for about 90 years, but

since 1934 have operated a dude ranch under the name and

style of G Bar M Guest Ranch. This limits its guests to

ten or fifteen at a time so that the guests can have a

more personal experience of the old west and cattle

ranching. Any expansion of the use of Miles Creek road

beyond its present use would seriously impact the

Leffingwells' guest ranch business, which is an essential

monetary supplement to their cattle operation.

Furthermore, the District Court took note of the fact that Elk Park

Ranch was aware of the restrictions on its access to its property

in 1988 when it demanded a $10,000 reduction in the purchase price

of its property for that reason, and in 1989 when it filed suit

against Security Title of Park County, Inc., and the American Title

Insurance Company complaining that the easements "severely

15
restricted access." In light of Elk Park's prior lawsuit, the

District Court noted the inconsistency of Elk Park's present

position and stated that "Elk Park should be judicially estopped

from now taking a contrary position about the road."

Elk Park also challenges the District Court's conclusion that

the easements cannot be enlarged to access property not owned by

Camp or Curdy in 1927 when the easements were conveyed. Elk Park

contends that although most of the property it intends to access by

means of Miles Creek Road is property which was acquired after

1927, that property was later acquired by one of Camp's successors

and is contiguous to the remainder of the Camp property.

When the easements were executed in 1927, the Camps owned only

Section 8 and the NH of Section 18, TlN, R0E, and the Curdys only

owned the 5% of Section 6, TlN, R8E, and the WJi of Section 20.

Although the 1927 easements limit Elk Park's access to Section 8

and the N% of Section 18, Elk Park now proposes to use the 1927

easements to access the following additional property which was not

owned by either the Camps or the Curdys in 1927:

All of Sections 17, 18, and 21, E3420; Lots 1, 2 and S%NE%

of Section 19; and Nl%'NW%NE%, N$4NE1%NE%, NWl%iiE% and Em%

of Section 18, TlN, R8E, M.P.M.

The 1927 easements are not appurtenant to any of the property which

Elk Park now proposes to access.

As the Court of Appeals of Arizona noted:

It is elementary law that an easement cannot be extended

by the owner of the dominant tenement to other land owned

by him adjacent to or beyond the land to which it is

appurtenant, for such extension would constitute an

16
unreasonable increase of the burden of the servient

tenement.

DND Neffson Co. v. Galleria Partners (Ariz. App. 1987), 745 P.2d 206, 207.

1n this case, the 1927 easements are appurtenant only to those

lands held by the grantees at the time the easements were granted,

and therefore cannot be used to access after-acquired property.

We therefore hold that the District Court correctly concluded

that Elk Park cannot access its development over the 1927 easements

because the use proposed by Elk Park was not contemplated by the

original parties to the easements, would be inconsistent with the

historical use of the easements, and would constitute an improper

burdening of those easements. We further hold that the District

Court correctly concluded that Elk Park cannot use the easements to

access property which was not owned by James Camp in 1927 because

easements cannot be used to access after-acquired property. We

therefore affirm the order of the District Court.