Opinion ID: 2638645
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Rosencranse Easement

Text: [¶ 12] The Hasvolds contend that the district court erred when it ruled that Rosencranse held a valid easement appurtenant over the Hasvold property. The Hasvolds claim that the Rosencranse easement was in gross and personal to Tall Oak because, at the time the Ellises granted it to Tall Oak, Tall Oak did not own the dominant estate. They argue, therefore, that the easement did not follow the land when it was transferred to Rosencranse. [¶ 13] An easement is defined as an interest in land which entitles the easement holder to a limited use or enjoyment over another person's property. Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500, 504 (Wyo.1994); Restatement of Property § 450(a) (1944). In construing an easement, we seek to determine the intent of the parties to the easement. R.C.R., Inc. v. Rainbow Canyon, Inc., 978 P.2d 581, 586 (Wyo.1999). See also Restatement Third, Property ( Servitudes ) § 4.1 (2000). We begin by attempting to glean the meaning of the easement from its language. R.C.R., Inc., 978 P.2d at 586; Steil v. Smith, 901 P.2d 395, 396 (Wyo.1995). If the language of the easement is clear and unambiguous, we interpret the easement as a matter of law, without resorting to the use of extrinsic evidence to determine the parties' intent. Id. If, however, the language is ambiguous, then the court looks to extrinsic evidence to ascertain the parties' intent. R.C.R., Inc., 978 P.2d at 586; Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850, 855 (Wyo.1996). [¶ 14] We distinguish between appurtenant easements and easements in gross as follows: `An easement is appurtenant to the land when the easement is created to benefit and does benefit the possessor of the land in his use of the land.' Weber v. Johnston Fuel Liners, Inc., 519 P.2d 972, 975 (Wyo.1974) (quoting Restatement of Property § 453, at 2914 (1944)). In contrast, `[a]n easement is in gross when it is not created to benefit or when it does not benefit the possessor of any tract of land in his use of it as such possessor.' Id. (quoting Restatement of Property, supra, § 454, at 2917). An easement will not be presumed to be in gross when it can fairly be construed to be appurtenant. Id. R.C.R., Inc. 978 P.2d at 586. The principles recently set out in the Restatement Third, Property are consistent with Wyoming case law. Restatement Third, Property ( Servitudes ) § 4.1(2000) states: (1) A servitude should be interpreted to give effect to the intention of the parties ascertained from the language used in the instrument, or the circumstances surrounding creation of the servitude, and to carry out the purpose for which it was created. Restatement Third, Property ( Servitudes ) § 4.5(1) specifically discusses how to distinguish between appurtenant easements and easements in gross: (1) Except where application of the rules stated in § 4.1 leads to a different result, the benefit of a servitude is: (a) appurtenant to an interest in property if it serves a purpose that would be more useful to a successor to a property interest held by the original beneficiary of the servitude at the time the servitude was created than it would be to the original beneficiary after transfer of that interest to a successor; (b) in gross if created in a person who held no property that benefited from the servitude, or if it serves a purpose that would be more useful to the original beneficiary than it would be to a successor to an interest in property held by the original beneficiary at the time the servitude was created[.] [¶ 15] The Hasvolds point to the case of Town of Moorcroft v. Lang, 779 P.2d 1180 (Wyo.1989), as supporting their position that, in order to create a valid appurtenant easement, the grantee must own the dominant estate at the time of the grant. In the Moorcroft case, we held that a common law dedication of streets creates an appurtenant easement in the street property for use by the public for public purposes. 779 P.2d at 1184. This court applied the presumed intent rule and held that the grant of a lot by a developer also passes title to the strip of land which runs from the boundary of the lot to the middle of the adjoining street, subject to the public's easement. Id. The court explained that the result was governed by the fact that creation of an appurtenant easement requires a servient estate and a dominant estate. Id. [¶ 16] We cannot accept the Hasvolds' argument that the Moorcroft case dictates that the grantee of an easement must own the dominant estate at the time the easement is granted in order for the easement to be appurtenant. The facts of the Moorcroft case are vastly different from the facts of this case. Moorcroft was concerned with a public easement created by the dedication of streets, while this case involves a private easement created by an express grant. Moreover, the Moorcroft case could even be said to support a position contrary to the Hasvolds' in light of the fact that the court stated that the easement was appurtenant and the public, as the owner of the dominant estate, did not actually own any real property, which benefited from the easement. [¶ 17] Of course, in the typical situation, the grantee of an appurtenant easement will already have acquired title to the dominant estate when the easement is granted. Nevertheless, the First Restatement acknowledged the possibility that an easement appurtenant may be created to benefit a person as the possessor of certain land contingent upon his obtaining possession thereof, or upon his future selection of land to which the easement will then become appurtenant. Restatement of Property, § 453, cm. a (1944). [¶ 18] In the case at bar, Donald Kramer was the fee owner of the Rosencranse property at the time the Ellises conveyed the easement to Tall Oak. Kramer was an owner and officer of Tall Oak. Tall Oak needed the easement in order to secure financing from its lenders. Shortly after the easement was recorded, Kramer deeded the property to Tall Oak. At that point, the dominant estate and easement right were unified in title to Tall Oak. [¶ 19] Under these circumstances, the fact that Tall Oak did not own the dominant estate when the easement was conveyed does not, by itself, dictate that the easement cannot be interpreted as being appurtenant to the land. The ultimate determinant of whether an easement is appurtenant or in gross is the intent of the parties to the easement. As we stated, supra, in determining the parties' intent, we look first to the language of the easement. [¶ 20] The easement document in this case [2] states, in relevant part: