Opinion ID: 901745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Tree Removal

Text: [¶ 31.] In the absence of contrary language in the easement, a servient owner may reasonably use that portion of its real property subject to an egress, ingress, and roadway easement for its own purposes up to the point where such uses substantially interfere with the dominant owner's reasonable use of the easement. Picardi II, 2005 SD 24, ¶ 32, 693 N.W.2d at 665 (citing Maasen v. Shaw, 133 S.W.3d 514, 520 (Mo.Ct.App.2004)). Thus, [t]he right to store, park, plant, and construct on the non-roadway portions of the easement remain with the servient owner. Id. (citing Earth City Crescent Assoc's v. LAGF Assoc's-Mo, LLC, 60 S.W.3d 44, 46 (Mo.Ct.App. 2001); Frain v. Brda, 863 S.W.2d 17, 19 (Mo.Ct.App.1993); Baum v. Glen Park Properties, 660 S.W.2d 723, 726-27 (Mo. Ct.App.1983); Schroer v. Brooks, 204 Mo.App. 567, 224 S.W. 53, 57 (1920)). The servient tenement owner's uses of non-roadway portions of the easement include parking, signage, curbing, planting or removal of trees, sod and other vegetation. Id. Id. (emphasis added). The dominant owner may only remove an obstruction when it interferes with the dominant owner's right of use. Maasen, 133 S.W.3d at 520. [T]he dominant owner may remove trees and earth that obstruct the easement roadway. Id. [¶ 32.] Halls were originally granted a thirty-foot wide permanent easement for purposes of ingress and egress. At the point of entry, however, Halls only utilized approximately fourteen feet of the easement. [4] DeHavens, as the owners of the land underlying the easement, had the right to use the portion of the easement not used for ingress and egress: DeHavens' right was exercisable . . .: in any reasonable manner that does not interfere with [Halls'] ability to travel upon the roadway. This includes the right to use the ditches of the current roadway, and the ditches of any future roadway, for parking signage, fences, fence posts, curbing, planting or removal of trees, sod, or other vegetation. Picardi II, 2005 SD 24, ¶ 34, 693 N.W.2d at 665. [¶ 33.] In this case the trial court found, and the evidence reflects, that the tree did not interfere with the Halls' reasonable use of the easement. While potential purchasers complained of difficulty accessing the easement, Halls did not present evidence that they were expanding the roadway from its current width to the maximum allowable width or that removal of the tree was necessary because it obstructed the roadway. [5] Because the trial court found that the tree did not interfere with Halls' reasonable use of the easement, Halls were not entitled to remove the tree. [¶ 34.] With respect to damages, SDCL 21-3-10 provides in part: For the wrongful injury to timber, trees, . . . or removal thereof the measure of damages is three times such a sum as would compensate for the actual detriment[.] The parties stipulated that the value of the tree was $500, and the court awarded $1,500 for the tree. The trial court did not err in awarding damages.