Opinion ID: 2380762
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Deed Unambiguously Grants The State A Perpetual Right To Construct A Road.

Text: The Diases argue that the instrument's language unambiguously supports the use of the conveyance only for temporary material extraction. The State argues that the instrument unambiguously grants it a perpetual highway right of way. The language of the instrument supports the State's contention. The instrument grants the State the right to construct and maintain a highway and to perform related activities, such as removing gravel. The instrument is entitled GRANT OF RIGHT OF WAY EASEMENT and it conveys an easement and right of way. We have stated that [a] `right-of-way' is generally considered to be a class of easement. [10] We have described a right of way as primarily a privilege to pass over another's land, [11] and we have consistently used the phrase right of way to refer to strips of land used for passage of people or things. [12] Black's Law Dictionary also defines right of way as a right of passage. [13] Given the definition of right of way and our past interpretation of the term, the instrument unambiguously gives the State the right to use the land for passage. The instrument provides the State with an easement and right of way along, over and across land. This phrase is consistent with a purpose of highway construction; it is inconsistent with a purpose limited to only the removal of gravel and other materials, which involves removing the materials from below the surface of the land. The conveyance is a narrow strip of land 150 feet wide and 2000 feet long running alongside an existing road, a configuration that would reasonably be used for a road. The instrument lists no/100 dollars as consideration for the easement and right of way, but provides that the State will pay ten cents per cubic yard of gravel or other material removed from the conveyed area. The Diases argue that the specification of consideration only for the removal of gravel or other material signifies that the instrument conveyed only the right to remove those materials. The lack of stated consideration for the easement and right of way, however, does not change the plain meaning of the instrument. Cornelius may have had a number of reasons to limit his cash payments to compensation for materials removed. For instance, he may have decided that an improved road would increase the value of his property. Whatever his motivation, the limited cash compensation does not affect the scope or purpose of the right of way. The instrument also grants the State a perpetual right. The instrument unambiguously states that the right conveyed to the State is perpetual, defeating the Diases' argument that only a temporary right was granted. The grant of a perpetual easement and right of way is also consistent with a grant to construct and maintain a highway, which is a permanent right, and inconsistent with a grant to only remove materials, which is generally a temporary right. Taken as a whole, an analysis of the four corners of the instrument unambiguously reveals the intent of the original parties the instrument grants the State a perpetual, full and unrestricted easement and right of way that can be used for highway construction and maintenance. The description of the easement and right of way supports this interpretation, and the financial arrangements do not change it. [14]