Opinion ID: 886076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 21 Did the District Court err in concluding that Ray had failed to prove a prescriptive easement over the Bromenshenk Property? ¶ 22 An easement is a nonpossessory interest in land that gives a person the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose. See Ruana v. Grigonis (1996), 275 Mont. 441, 447, 913 P.2d 1247, 1251; Kuhlman v. Rivera (1985), 216 Mont. 353, 358, 701 P.2d 982, 985. To establish a prescriptive easement, a claimant must establish open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted, exclusive and adverse use for five years. See § 70-19-404, MCA; Renner v. Nemitz, 2001 MT 202, ¶ 13, 306 Mont. 292, ¶ 13, 33 P.3d 255, ¶ 13. The claimant must prove these elements by clear and convincing evidence. See Renner, ¶ 13. ¶ 23 We have consistently followed the rule that open, notorious, continuous, uninterrupted and exclusive use raises a presumption that the use was also adverse. See Albert v. Hastetter, 2002 MT 123, ¶ 20, 310 Mont. 82, ¶ 20, 48 P.3d 749, ¶ 20. A claimant's failure to prove any element for the full prescriptive period is fatal to the entire claim. See Grimsley v. Estate of Spencer (1983), 206 Mont. 184, 196, 670 P.2d 85, 91-92. Although its reasoning was wrong, the District Court correctly held that Ray's use of the Wastewater Ditch was not adverse during any period of his use. ¶ 24 In reaching its conclusion, the court explained that Ray had entered upon the Bromenshenk Property no more than three times to maintain the Wastewater Ditch. Such use, the court reasoned, did not provide actual or presumed notice of a hostile claim of right. The District Court, therefore, concluded that Ray's use of the Wastewater Ditch over the Bromenshenk Property was not open, notorious and adverse during any period of his use. ¶ 25 The court improperly focused on Ray's entry onto the Bromenshenk Property. Ray is not seeking an easement to walk across the Bromenshenk Property. He is seeking an easement to flow water through the Wastewater Ditch on the Bromenshenk Property. The proper focus, therefore, is whether Ray's efforts to drain wastewater through the ditch were open, notorious or adverse. ¶ 26 Use is open and notorious when it gives the landowner actual knowledge of the claimed right, or is of such a character as to raise a presumption of notice. See Albert, ¶ 21; Hitshew v. Butte/Silver Bow County, 1999 MT 26, ¶ 17, 293 Mont. 212, ¶ 17, 974 P.2d 650, ¶ 17. Furthermore, when deciding the issue of adverse use, the court must determine whether the owner of the servient estate produced clear and convincing evidence that the use was permissive. See Albert, ¶ 28. Although the District Court erred in concluding that Ray's use was not open and notorious, it was correct in concluding that his use was not adverse. ¶ 27 Paul Bromenshenk testified at trial that he was aware of the Wastewater Ditch running across his property. He was also aware that Ray ran water across the ditch. In particular, Paul Bromenshenk testified as follows: Question: In your experience, who has used the wastewater ditch on the Zimmerman and Bromenshenk properties? Answer: Who has ran water across that ditch? I know Bill Deines has, Jerry Ray, I guess, and Johnny [Zimmerman]. And that's all to my knowledge that  yeah, that's all I know, yeah. ¶ 28 Although Paul Bromenshenk clearly should have been aware of Ray's use of the ditch, Ray's use of the ditch was nevertheless permissive. While Ray did not abide by all of the conditions requested of him when using the Wastewater Ditch, the evidence is clear that Ray's use of the ditch remained permissive. Paul Bromenshenk testified that he never withdrew permission to run water through the Wastewater Ditch: Question: Have the owners of the Bromenshenk Property ever withdrawn permission or refused to let Mr. Ray run wastewater across the Bromenshenk Property? Answer: No, we've never even  up until this  until that  until we received the [complaint] in the mail, there was no contact or stopping or anything of wastewater on our property. ¶ 29 Ray also testified as to the permissive nature of his use: Question: Did you ever personally or through an agent tell the Bromenshenks that you were using the ditch across their land under a claim of right and not by permission? Answer: There was at least one time I had visited with Paul. Paul informed me that I wasn't the only one having trouble with John Zimmerman. This was a few years back. Question: Okay. But did you tell him  Answer: And Paul informed me that I had a right to run my water. Got along pretty good. Bought some hay from him for several years. And that's all I can remember of a conversation like that. Question: Did you tell him that you had a right  did you tell him you had a right and you were not using his ditch by permission? Answer: I don't recall that, ma'am. ¶ 30 We will affirm a district court's ruling if the court reaches the correct result, even if it does so for the wrong reason. See Eschenbacher v. Anderson, 2001 MT 206, ¶ 40, 306 Mont. 321, ¶ 40, 34 P.3d 87, ¶ 40. While the District Court incorrectly focused on Ray's entry onto the Bromenshenk Property, the record supports its conclusion that Ray's use was not adverse. Thus, the court did not err in concluding that no prescriptive easement existed across the Bromenshenk Property.