Opinion ID: 874134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The District Court's Refusal to Allow Mature Trees Within the Secondary Easement to Be Removed Was Supported by Substantial Evidence

Text: Neither party contests the district court's holding regarding the location and width of the access-road easement. Appellants, however, argue that they should be permitted to remove trees within the secondary easement that runs along the established travelway. Despite the fact that the district court granted a three-foot secondary easement along each side of the travelway, it declined to allow any trees to be removed. It held that the existing mature trees within the secondary easement have not been shown to unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs' ability to maintain the travelway, and that removal of existing mature trees is precluded as it would constitute an alteration that unnecessarily burdens the servient tenement. The Caldwells testified that a number of trees are located just adjacent to the travelway, making travel difficult. They contend that the trees present the greatest problem during the winter, as they impede or damage the Caldwells' heavy plowing equipment and make it difficult to store snow in large piles near the travelway. The easement agreement conveyed to Appellants an easement over and across the Cometto property, for the benefit of their respective properties, located on the newly constructed roadway. When construing an instrument granting an easement, the court must consider the intent of the parties and the circumstances in existence at the time the easement was granted. Kolouch v. Kramer, 120 Idaho 65, 69, 813 P.2d 876, 880 (1991). Where the grant or reservation of an easement is general in its terms, use of the easement includes those uses which are incidental or necessary to the reasonable and proper enjoyment of the easement, but is limited to those that burden the servient estate as little as possible. Walker v. Boozer, 140 Idaho 451, 455, 95 P.3d 69, 73 (2004) (quoting Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 548, 808 P.2d 1289, 1293 (1991)). Idaho recognizes the existence of secondary easements, which convey the right to repair and maintain the primary easement so long as such activity is reasonable. Drew v. Sorensen, 133 Idaho 534, 538, 989 P.2d 276, 280 (1999); see also Conley v. Whittlesey, 133 Idaho 265, 271, 985 P.2d 1127, 1133 (1999) (stating that secondary easements to repair and maintain the primary easement cannot enlarge the burden on the servient estate); Simonson v. Moon, 72 Idaho 39, 48, 237 P.2d 93, 98 (1951) (recognizing that secondary easements exist as to ditch rights for the purpose of cleaning and maintenance). There was substantial evidence to justify the district court's finding that removing mature trees within the secondary easement would unreasonably burden the Comettos' estate. The district court provided the secondary easement along the length of the access road onto which the Caldwells could push snow. It also allowed two snow-storage areas adjacent to the road on the west side of their property, the portion furthest away from the Caldwells' parcel. The court reasoned that the Caldwells could store additional snow on their own property. The Caldwells own at least five pieces of heavy snow removal equipment, and although they have collided with trees before, there was no testimony that any specific trees make the road impassable in the winter. On appeal, rather than identifying particularly problematic individual trees, the Appellants seem to assert that all the trees within the secondary easement should be removed. Further, the district court had the benefit of a number of photographs that Appellants introduced at trial but did not provide to this Court on appeal. The district court's decision is therefore affirmed. Appellants expend considerable effort arguing that the Comettos violated I.C. § 55-313 in 1997 when they reconfigured the road so that a number of trees are directly adjacent to the travelway. This statute allows the servient-estate owner to relocate an access road when doing so does not injure interested parties. [6] Statewide Constr., Inc. v. Pietri, 150 Idaho 423, 429, 247 P.3d 650, 656 (2011). The Comettos contend that any claims under § 55-313 have already been litigated and settled by the easement agreement. Whether I.C. § 55-313 prevents the Comettos' from realigning the access road is not an issue before this Court. The district court below expressly limited the bench trial to interpreting the scope of Appellants' easement rights under the easement agreement and did not address any § 55-313 arguments in its Amended Partial Judgment. Whether Appellants have any lingering claims under § 55-313 or whether such claims are blocked by res judicata are issues that remain to be resolved in the next stage of the bifurcated proceedings.