Opinion ID: 886503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 19 Did the District Court err in failing to limit the scope and extent of any such prescriptive easement? ¶ 20 Molitor urges that if we find Han Farms does have a prescriptive easement across Molitor's road, as we have done, we limit the scope of said easement. Molitor cites us to § 70-17-106, MCA, which states: The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired. Based upon this statute, Molitor argues that the scope of Han Farms' easement should be limited to the use during the prescriptive period when the easement was acquired. ¶ 21 Han Farms counters that we should not respond to Molitor's scope argument because the issue is not properly before this Court. Specifically, Han Farms argues that the scope issue was not raised in the pleadings and was not mentioned in the Pretrial Order. ¶ 22 We addressed a similar issue in Warnack v. Coneen Family Trust (1994), 266 Mont. 203, 879 P.2d 715. In that case, we remanded to the District Court to determine whether a prescriptive easement existed. In doing so, we stated: For the guidance of the District Court on remand, however, we note that if the court determines that the Respondents have met their burden of proof and have established a prescriptive easement over the lands of the Appellants, the court must then determine the appropriate scope and extent of the easement.... Warnack, 266 Mont. at 217, 879 P.2d at 724. ¶ 23 We take this opportunity to clarify that in an action in which the existence of a prescriptive easement is at issue, it is implied that the scope of the easement, if the court finds one exists, is also at issue. We base this holding on our decision in Warnack, as well as § 70-17-106, MCA. ¶ 24 Pursuant to § 70-17-106, MCA, the scope of Han Farms' easement across Molitor's property should be limited to the use during the prescriptive period when the easement was acquired. We instruct the District Court to address the scope and extent of Han Farms' easement on remand, consistent with our holding in this Opinion. ¶ 25 Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded. We Concur: KARLA M. GRAY, C.J. and JAMES C. NELSON, PATRICIA COTTER and W. WILLIAM LEAPHART, JJ.