Opinion ID: 2572503
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: general grant of easement

Text: The district court found, and both parties agreed, that the 1995 easement was unambiguous in its language. As such, the district court considered the scope of the easement based on the language of the agreement itself and disallowed any extrinsic evidence as to the intent of the parties at the time of the agreement. Interpreting intent from an unambiguous [instrument] is a matter of law, the determination of which we review freely. Latham v. Garner, 105 Idaho 854, 857, 673 P.2d 1048, 1051 (1983). The 1995 easement reads in part: Grantor [now the Sein property] hereby grants and conveys unto Grantee [now the McFadden property], its successors and assigns, a permanent and perpetual non-exclusive easement and right-of-way for the purpose of constructing and utilizing a roadway for access to Parcel No. 4.... This is the only language in the document describing what pertinent rights are given to either party. The agreement does discuss limitations having to do with obstructions on the easement, as well as a right given to an irrigation district to access a canal near the properties. However, as the trial court found, the easement agreement does not address in any way subdividing any of the parcels. The easement agreement had attached to it, in addition to legal descriptions of the dominant and servient estates, a Record of Survey for Tonie Robertson (Survey) which was referenced in the agreement as depicting the location for the roadway. On summary judgment, Sein argued their case on the theory that the easement agreement could only be strictly construed according to the attached Survey depicting the parcels of land as they existed at the time the easement was created in 1995. The Survey, Sein argues, which depicts Parcel No. 4 as one single parcel, prevents any alteration to the land which would result in the property boundaries appearing any differently than as shown in the Survey. The language of the 1995 easement clearly states that it is a permanent and perpetual non-exclusive easement and right-of-way for the purpose of constructing and utilizing a roadway for access to Parcel No. 4. This non-exclusive language creates a general grant of easement. In Abbott v. Nampa School Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 548, 808 P.2d 1289, 1293 (1991), a general grant of easement was defined as an easement granted or reserved in general terms, without any limitations as to its use.... Accordingly, Abbott sets forth several rules governing this type of easement, which apply to the present case. First, 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. Id. Second, such easements are of unlimited reasonable use. Id. Third, these easements are not restricted to use merely for such purposes of the dominant estate as are reasonably required at the time of the grant or reservation, but the right may be exercised by the dominant owner for those purposes to which that estate may be subsequently devoted. Thus there may be an increase in the volume and kind of use of such easement during the course of its enjoyment. Id. Fourth, and significantly, absent language in the easement to the contrary, the uses made by the servient and dominant owners may be adjusted consistent with the normal development of their respective lands. Id. at 548-49, 808 P.2d at 1293-94. Thus, use of a general easement may be enlarged beyond the purposes originally required at the time the easement was created, so long as that use is reasonable and necessary and is consistent with the normal development of the land. Had the 1995 easement agreement contained language expressly prohibiting the subdividing of Parcel No. 4; expressly limiting the number of vehicles that could use the easement; or otherwise creating a limitation on the use of the easement that would be violated by the proposed subdivision, such language would control and the McFaddens would be precluded from subdividing their property. However, [t]he rule is that, absent language in the easement to the contrary, the uses made by the servient and dominant owners may be adjusted consistent with the normal development of their respective lands. Boydstun Beach Ass'n. v. Allen, 111 Idaho 370, 378, 723 P.2d 914, 922 (Ct.App. 1986). Because the language of the easement specifies that it is non-exclusive and contains no limitations on the use of Parcel No. 4, it is therefore a general grant of easement.