Source: https://cbaclelegalconnection.com/tag/easements/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:08:25+00:00

Document:
The Colorado Court of Appeals issued its opinion in LR Smith Investments, LLC v. Butler on Thursday, December 18, 2014.
In this prescriptive easement case, LR Smith Investments, LLC (Smith) claimed prescriptive easements for ingress and egress across two roads owned by Butler. The roads cross a ranch owned by Butler northwest of Craig in Moffat County. The trial court found that Smith and its predecessors continuously, openly, and notoriously used the roads from the mid-1950s until late 2011, when Butler dug ditches preventing access to the roads and thereby precipitated this litigation.
The trial court held that Butler did not meet her burden to overcome the presumption of adversity, and that Smith had satisfied the elements for prescriptive easements to use the roads. The court quieted title to Smith’s nonexclusive right to use the roads for ranching and agricultural purposes, to access the Smith property for hunting and guiding purposes, and for all other similar uses.
On appeal, Butler argued that the court erred in finding that Smith’s use of the road was not permissive, which would defeat Smith’s prescriptive easement claim. The trial court found that Smith’s use of the property was open and notorious for a period in excess of eighteen years. Moreover, the court’s finding that there was no agreement, explicit or implied, between the parties that established that Smith’s use of the roads was permissive was supported by the record. Mere acquiescence or silence is not proof of permissive use. Therefore, Butler did not overcome the presumption of adversity. The judgment was affirmed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Kimzey vs. Flamingo Seismic on Monday, October 15, 2012.
Plaintiffs own surface estates in Oklahoma. Defendant is a company engaged in geophysical data services for the oil and gas industry. Owners of undivided interests in the oil and gas and/or mineral leaseholds underlying Plaintiffs’ lands granted permission to Defendant to conduct seismic exploration. Plaintiffs argued that the owners of the leaseholds had no right to grant Defendant permission to enter the properties, and that such permission was further invalid because the seismic exploration did not benefit the mineral estate. In granting Defendant’s summary judgment motion, the district court noted that it is well-established under Oklahoma law that an owner of mineral interests and/or oil and gas leasehold rights can validly grant a permit authorizing another person to conduct seismic exploration of a mineral estate. The district court further found that there was no support in the case law for Plaintiffs’ assertion that there must be a benefit to the mineral estate in order for an owner to have authority to assign his right to conduct seismic operations. The district awarded also Defendant $71,560 in attorney’s fees.
The Tenth Circuit agreed with the district court that Oklahoma law clearly permits owners of mineral estates to grant access to the surface property in order to conduct seismic exploration. In Oklahoma, the owner of a mineral interest has the right to enter the land to explore for oil and gas. As to attorneys’ fees, after establishing jurisdiction, the Tenth Circuit found no abuse of discretion by the district court in its award of attorneys’ fees. District court’s grant of Defendant’s summary judgment motion and award of attorneys’ fees AFFIRMED.
The Colorado Supreme Court issued its opinion in Larson v. Sinclair Transportation Co. on May 21, 2012.
The Supreme Court held that the Colorado General Assembly did not grant, either expressly or by clear implication, condemnation authority to companies to construct petroleum pipelines. Accordingly, Sinclair Transportation Company was not entitled, under CRS § 38-5-105, to immediate possession of easements for the construction of its gasoline pipeline. The judgment of the court of appeals was reversed.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals published its opinion in George v. United States on Monday, March 5, 2012.
Plaintiff Ann George wanted to build a fence across her property, but the fence blocked a federal easement road accessing the Gila National Forest. The government objected to the fence based on federal regulations. In 2009, Ms. George filed a quiet title action to build the fence. The District Court ruled in favor of the government, holding that the statute of limitations had run on plaintiff’s claim. Plaintiff appealed.
A quiet title action has a statute of limitations of 12 years, and begins to run when “the plaintiff or his predecessor in interest knew or should have known of the claim of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2409a(g). The Secretary of Agriculture published regulations in the Federal Register in 1977 prohibiting anyone from “placing . . . [a] fence . . . without a permit” anywhere in the “National Forest System” or on its “[f]orest development road[s] or trail[s].” 36 C.F.R. §§ 261.10(a); 261.1(a) (1977). Publishing a regulation in the Federal Register must be considered “sufficient to give notice of [its] contents” to “a person subject to or affected by it.” 44 U.S.C. § 1507.
The undisputed facts established that Mr. Hamilton, plaintiff’s predecessor in interest, reached an agreement with the federal government in 1979, in part establishing the easement road across which plaintiff wished to build a fence. Therefore, the statute of limitations began to run in 1979, when Mr. Hamilton “knew or should have known” about the regulations that had been published in 1977 prohibiting the construction of a fence on a forest road. Therefore, in 2009, plaintiff brought her claim 18 years too late.
The case was not decided on the merits. The court’s ruling had only to do with the statute of limitations. The judgment was affirmed.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 38
 v. 
 § 2409
 § 1507