Title: SCHMID v MCDOWELL
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 81-498
State: Montana
Issuer: Montana Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1982

No. 81-498 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1982 LEE SCHMID and ALPHIE SCHMID, Plaintiffs and Appellants, VS. JOSEPH RAYMOND McDOWELL et al., Defendants and Respondents. Appeal from: District Court of the Eleventh Judicial District, In and for the County of Flathead Honorable James M. Salansky, Judge presidinq. Counsel of Record: For Appellants: Hash, Jellison, OIBrien & Bartlett, Kalispell, Montana Kenneth O'Brien, Kalispell, Montana For Respondents: Astle and Astle, Kalispell, Montana David Astle, Kalispell, Montana Submitted on briefs: April 22, 1982 Decided: July 15, 1982 Filed : JUL 1 5 1982 Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of t h e Court. The p l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l a judgment i s s u e d by t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Eleventh J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Flathead County, denying t h e i r c l a i m f o r an implied r e s e r v a t i o n of right-of-way o r way of n e c e s s i t y a c r o s s d e f e n d a n t s ' land. The f a c t s were s t i p u l a t e d on appeal and, with r e f e r - ence t o E x h i b i t 1 below, may be summarized a s f o l l o w s : TRACT c ( ~ n t h r a ~ o n pat+) 3 5 TI4 7-E - .- L A N D - - v D.iV LAND I STATE L A N D - A TRACT A (5chm,d 7mt) /,TAT€ LAW^ \ \ COQN T)/ ROAD - (Mcnowelj B. PJ. LAND / A person named J u n k i n s a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o T r a c t A (Schmid T r a c t ) i n 1908 and a c q u i r e d t i t l e t o T r a c t B (McDowell T r a c t ) i n 1940. I n 1914 he bought and then s o l d T r a c t C (Mathiason T r a c t ) . I n 1945, he s o l d T r a c t B t o t h e p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t of t h e respondents (McDowells) . That same y e a r , t h e respondents' p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t b u i l t t h e road t r a v e r s i n g T r a c t 0 . I n 1957 t h e a p p e l l a n t s (Schmids) and a person named Hardinger purchased T r a c t A. I n 1965, a p p e l l a n t s purchased H a r d i n g e r ' s i n t e r e s t i n T r a c t A and became its s o l e owners, No e x p r e s s right-of-way o r o t h e r easement was r e s e r v e d over t h e McDowell T r a c t . When J u n k i n s s o l d t h e McDowe11 and Schmid T r a c t s , they were both landlocked i n t h a t t h e y were surrounded by s t a t e land o r Burlington Northern (BN) land and t h e r e was no l i n k t o t h e county road without c r o s s i n g s t a t e land. When J u n k i n s s o l d t h e McDowell T r a c t , a road known a s King Creek Road e x i s t e d e a s t of t h e McDowell T r a c t . T h i s road, l~owever, n e i t h e r ad joined nor t r a v e r s e d t h e McDowell o r Schmid T r a c t s . The d i s p u t e h e r e c e n t e r s around use of t h e road b u i l t by respondents' p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t i n 1945. The D i s t r i c t Court, based on t h e above f a c t s , concluded a s a m a t t e r of law t h a t t h e r e was no implied r e s e r v a t i o n of a right-of-way o r way of n e c e s s i t y over t h e McDowe11 T r a c t , The s o l e i s s u e on review, t h e n , is simply whether t h e D i s t r i c t Court e r r e d by concluding t h a t a p p e l l a n t s have no way of n e c e s s i t y a c r o s s r e s p o n d e n t s f p r o p e r t y . Because both t r a c t s o r i g i n a l l y owned by Junkins were landlocked with no a c c e s s t o a p u b l i c road e x c e p t a c r o s s s t a t e o r BN l a n d s , and because a way of n e c e s s i t y cannot be claimed over l a n d s of a t h i r d p a r t y o r a s t r a n g e r i n t i t l e , t h e D i s t r i c t Court must be a f f i r m e d . A p p e l l a n t s contend t h a t it is "well s e t t l e d " i n Montana t h a t i f one conveys a p a r t of h i s land so a s t o d e p r i v e himself of a c c e s s t o t h e remainder u n l e s s he g o e s a c r o s s land s o l d , he has a way of n e c e s s i t y over t h e p o r t i o n conveyed. H e r r i n v. Sieben ( 1 9 1 2 ) , 46 Mont. 226, 126 P. 223. A p p e l l a n t s argue t h a t under t h i s r u l e they have a way of n e c e s s i t y t o t h e county road a c r o s s both T r a c t B and t h e s t a t e l a n d . Respondents contend t h a t a way of n e c e s s i t y , a s an implied easement, must be i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e tirne t h e l a n d is i n i t i a l l y severed. S i n c e t h e road was n o t b u i l t u n t i l a f t e r J u n k i n s s o l d t h e p r o p e r t y , respondents claim a way of n e c e s s i t y does n o t e x i s t . N e i t h e r p a r t y h a s c o r r e c t l y p r e s e n t e d t h e d e f i n i t i o n of a "way of n e c e s s i t y . " Respondents a r e c o r r e c t i n t h e s e n s e t h a t a "way of n e c e s s i t y " is a type of "implied easement ." That does n o t n e c e s s a r i l y mean, however, t h a t a way of n e c e s s i t y must be i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e time of conveyance. A way of n e c e s s i t y is d i s t i n g u i s h e d from o t h e r implied easements on t h e simple ground t h a t i t need - n o t be i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e time of conveyance. See, 3 Powell on Real P r o p e r t y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , s e c t i o n s 410 and 411. I n t h e p a s t , t h i s Court h a s d i s c u s s e d an "implied r e s e r v e d easement of n e c e s s i t y . " Godfrey v. P i l o n ( 1 9 7 4 ) , 165 Mont. 439, 529 P.2d 1372. I n Godfrey, we s t a t e d t h a t such an easement must be "open and v i s i b l e " a t t h e time of conveyance. 529 P.2d a t 1376. I n Godfrey, however, we were d i s c u s s i n g implied easements i n g e n e r a l and n o t a "way of n e c e s s i t y " i n p a r t i c u l a r , a s r e c o g n i z e d i n T h i s t e d v , Country Club Tower Corporation ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 146 Mont. 87, 405 P.2d 432. G e n e r a l l y , a way of n e c e s s i t y is d e f i n e d a s f o l l o w s : "[wlhere an owner of land conveys a p a r c e l t h e r e o f which h a s no o u t l e t t o a highway except over t h e remaining l a n d s of t h e g r a n t o r o r over t h e land of s t r a n g e r s , a way of n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s over t h e remaining l a n d s of t h e g r a n t o r . " Finn v. Williams ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 376 I l l . 95, 33 N,E.2d 226, 228; s e e a l s o , 25 Arn.Jur .2d Easements, s e c t i o n 34 e t seq.; 3 Powell on Real P r o p e r t y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , s e c t i o n 410. S i m i l a r l y , a way of n e c e s s i t y is found when t h e owner of l a n d s r e t a i n s t h e inner p o r t i o n conveying t o a n o t h e r t h e balance, a c r o s s which he must go f o r e x i t and a c c e s s . Powell, s u p r a , s e c t i o n 410. The easement i t s e l f a r i s e s a t t h e time of conveyance, i . e . , when t h e n e c e s s i t y t o have a c c e s s t o t h e o u t s i d e world a r i s e s . Unlike o t h e r implied easements, it is t h e r e f o r e well s e t t l e d t h a t a way of n e c e s s i t y need n o t be i n e x i s t e n c e a t t h e time of conveyance s i n c e t h e n e c e s s i t y d o e s n o t a r i s e p r i o r t o t h a t time. A p p e l l a n t s ' argument, n e v e r t h e l e s s , cannot succeed because t h e y a r e claiming a way of n e c e s s i t y n o t o n l y a c r o s s t h e p o r t i o n conveyed b u t a l s o a c r o s s s t a t e land. An important p r e r e q u i s i t e t o t h e c r e a t i o n of a way of n e c e s s i t y is t h a t t h e t r a c t s over which t h e easement is claimed must have been h e l d by one person a t one time. Montana W i l d e r n e s s A s s o c i a t i o n v . U n i t e d S t a t e s F o r e s t S e r v i c e (D. Mont. 1 9 8 0 ) , 496 F.Supp. 880. T h i s "common ownership" o r " u n i t y of t i t l e " must have e x i s t e d immediately p r i o r t o t h e severance g i v i n g r i s e t o t h e n e c e s s i t y . Powell, s u p r a , s e c t i o n 410; 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements, s e c t i o n 35; and f o r l i s t of c a s e s s e e 94 A.L.R.3d 502, s e c t i o n s 9-12, A s a c o r o l l a r y t o t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s of common ownership, most c o u r t s have held t h a t a way of n e c e s s i t y can only a r i s e o u t of t h e land g r a n t e d o r r e s e r v e d by t h e g r a n t o r and never o u t of t h e land of a t h i r d p a r t y o r a s t r a n g e r t o t h e t i t l e . See, e.g., Zimmerman v. Summers ( 1 9 7 5 ) , 24 Md.App. 100, 330 A.2d 722; Robertson v. Robertson ( 1 9 7 3 ) , 214 Va. 76, 197 S,E.2d 183. Here, t h e land now owned by t h e S t a t e of Montana was n o t p a r t of t h e o r i g i n a l land owned by J u n k i n s and, t h e r e f o r e , n o t under "common ownership" o r " u n i t y of t i t l e , " O n t h i s ground a l o n e , a p p e l l a n t s ' claim f o r t h e way of n e c e s s i t y must f a i l . Moreover, it h a s a l s o been h e l d t h a t a way of n e c e s s i t y cannot e x i s t a c r o s s land which had no a c c e s s t o a p u b l i c road when t h e p r o p e r t y was d i v i d e d by t h e common g r a n t o r . G r i f f i n v. North (Fla.App. 1 9 7 9 ) , 373 So.2d 96. The r a t i o n a l e of t h i s r u l e was expressed well i n Daywalt v , Walker ( 1 9 6 3 ) , 217 Cal.App.2d 669, 31 Cal.Rptr. 899, 903: ". . . I f two p a r c e l s joined and t e m p o r a r i l y c o n s t i t u t i n g one a r e b o t h l a n d l o c k e d , a n e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n f o r t h e c r e a t i o n of a way of n e c e s s i t y is n o n e x i s t e n t , because i f both p a r c e l s a r e c u t o f f from a p u b l i c road, t h e b a s i c reason f o r t h e c r e a t i o n of a way of n e c e s s i t y , namely, t o permit communication with t h e o u t s i d e world, is n o t p r e s e n t . " Here, both t h e Schmid and McDowell T r a c t s were land- locked when J u n k i n s owned them. Both p a r c e l s were c u t o f f from t h e p u b l i c road. A f t e r t h e s e l l i n g of t h e Mathiason T r a c t i n 1914, J u n k i n s himself had no a c c e s s t o a p u b l i c road and presumably had t o c r o s s s t a t e o r BN land t o reach h i s landlocked land. A s i n Daywalt, t h e b a s i c reason f o r a way o f n e c e s s i t y was n o t p r e s e n t a t t h e t i m e J u n k i n s conveyed T r a c t B t o t h e McDowellsl p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t . The D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s d e n i a l o f t h e way o f n e c e s s i t y is t h e r e f o r e a f f i r m e d . J u s t i c e W e c o n c u r : 8 4 4 &(&.Q"Qq C h i e f J u s t l c e