Opinion ID: 1280931
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Authority to Grant Easement in Quiet Title Action.

Text: VBC argues the trial court erred by granting Peterson's implied easement to the parking lot because it simultaneously denied his adverse possession claim. This argument is without a factual or legal basis. Peterson's summons and complaint constituted an action to quiet title, not one merely for adverse possession, and conformed with the statutory forms set forth in SDCL 21-41-7 and -11. [2] Peterson's complaint not only gave a general description of the adverse claims against VBC, it also went further to request the court to specifically grant adverse possession or, in the alternative, determine all adverse claims to said real property. A similar contention was considered in Nelson v. Gregory County, 323 N.W.2d 139, 142 (S.D.1982), where we held that even though the plaintiff's complaint failed to specifically request a determination of an easement right connected with the property, it did not preclude a determination of easement rights in a quiet title action. The Nelson court stated: [T]he purposes of a quiet title action as set forth in SDCL 21-41-1 and SDCL 21-41-11 include a determination of easement rights. Id. (citation omitted). The trial court had the authority to make a determination of easement rights in considering Peterson's quiet title action even where it found that adverse possession had not been established.