Opinion ID: 883235
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: scope of easement

Text: In its conclusions of law, the District Court stated: The rights of plaintiffs, their heirs, successors, assigns and agents to use said primary road easement should be on foot, horseback, and all ordinary modern means of transportation for purposes of access to their lands, construction of residences and outbuildings, all agricultural purposes, including but not limited to timber management and logging, and hunting, fishing, camping and recreation. However, none of the parties should be prohibited from placing unlocked gates or cattleguards on their property boundaries to confine livestock. The Appellants contend that the easement granted by the District Court was overbroad and far exceeds the character and extent of the use of the claimed easement during the prescriptive period. The Respondents answer that the evidence supports the District Court's finding as to the scope of the easement. Since we are remanding this case to the District Court for its reconsideration of whether, on application of the correct law to the evidentiary record established at trial, there exists a prescriptive easement in favor of the Respondents, we decline to address the merits of this issue. For the guidance of the District Court on remand, however, we note that if the court determines that the Respondents have met their burden of proof and have established a prescriptive easement over the lands of the Appellants, the court must then determine the appropriate scope and extent of the easement under the following rule: It is settled law in Montana that in acquiring a prescriptive easement, the right of the owner of the dominant estate is governed by the character and extent of the use during the period requisite to acquire it. Marta v. Smith (1981), 191 Mont. 179, 183, 622 P.2d 1011, 1013. (Citation omitted.) The Marta court went on to state, [t]herefore, Martas' use of the roadway cannot exceed the use which they made of it during the prescriptive period. Marta, 622 P.2d at 1013. (Citations omitted.) The District Court must carefully evaluate the prior use of the roadway and, applying the above stated rule, limit the scope and extent of any easement found to have been established to the use made of it during the prescriptive period. REVERSED AND REMANDED FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THIS OPINION. TURNAGE, C.J., and HARRISON, HUNT, TRIEWEILER, GRAY and WEBER, JJ., concur.