Opinion ID: 888888
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court err in concluding a prescriptive easement existed to Lot 14 for year-round residential and recreational use?

Text: ¶ 13 The Schmids argue the District Court erred when it found that Lot 14 was used continuously for residential purposes, because the lot was actually used only part time. Schmids thus contend that the District Court erred in determining the scope of prescriptive road easement declared in favor of Lot 14, as the easement should not have included year-round, residential use. ¶ 14 In response, PTH directs our attention to portions of Mrs. Street's testimony, which they argue supports the District Court's conclusion that she lived on Lot 14 full-time: Q. Approximately what months would you occupy the cabin from year to year? A. Oh, April to October, and I lived there permanently from '97 until 2000  until '02  I don't have my glasses on  with some months in Arizona. . . . Q. Please describe the number of occasions you visited the cabin to check on it in the winter. A. Monthly. Q. When you checked on your cabin in the winter what all would you do? A. We checked the roof and checked the house, shoveled the roof. . . . Q. Did you live full-time at the Whitefish Lake property, Lots 14, 15, and 16 of Brittles Point of Pine Subdivision generally through May through September for more than a five-year period during the time you owned the property? A. From 1997 to sale to Pastors. Schmids reply that living in the cabin on Lot 14 from April to October of each year is not full-time, and that the above-quoted testimony constitutes the entirety of PTH's case in support of a year-round residential easement. They contend their burden as the servient tenement will increase inappropriately if PTH is allowed to use the Road for year-round access to the property. ¶ 15 Mrs. Street testified that she stayed at the cabin each year from April to October, and I lived there permanently from '97 . . . until '02. The testimony of one witness is sufficient to prove a fact. State v. Merrick, 2000 MT 124, ¶ 13, 299 Mont. 472, 2 P.3d 242. The District Court was in the best position to view the evidence. Renner v. Nemitz, 2001 MT 202, ¶ 12, 306 Mont. 292, 33 P.3d 255. While the amount of testimony is minimal, we cannot conclude that the evidence, which we look at in a light most favorable to PTH, was a mere scintilla or was insufficient to support the District Court's finding that Mrs. Street resided permanently at the cabin between 1997 and 2003, using the Road for access. The record does not convince us that the court misapprehended the evidence or leave us with the impression that a mistake has been made; therefore, we will not disturb the court's finding. Knutson, ¶ 15. The Streets' historical use of the Road for access to Lot 14 during the prescriptive period supports the court's conclusion that the scope of PTH's easement includes ingress and egress for year-round residential and recreational use for that lot. Leichtfuss, ¶ 30.