Opinion ID: 2570567
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Fishing Rights

Text: [¶ 32] Upon our review of the fishing license agreement at issue, we conclude, as did the district court, that it is unambiguous as a matter of law. [6] However, we disagree with the determination of the district court that this document creates only a revocable license. Initially, we note that in making its ruling the district court partially relied on the fact that the parties within the agreement are referred to as licensor and licensee. We further recognize that the title to the document utilizes the wording Fishing License Agreement. The label that the parties give the right, however, does not dictate its legal effect. Jon W. Bruce and James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land, at § 1:5 (2001). Also, the title to an instrument is not controlling in determining whether the right conferred is a license or an easement; the intent of the parties to the agreement is controlling. 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses, §§ 3 and 137 (1996). In addition, § 14 of the agreement expressly states that the headings used within the agreement are for convenience only and are not to be utilized in construction of the document. [¶ 33] The plain language used within the agreement supports the conclusion that the fishing rights involved run with the land and do not merely constitute revocable license rights. In attempting to discern the parties' intent, 1) identified by the manner in which the right was created, 2) the nature of the right created, 3) the duration of the right, 4) the amount of consideration given for the right, and 5) whether there is a reservation of power to revoke the right as we are required, we can reach no other resolution but that these rights run with the land. See Baker v. Pike , at ¶ 20. [¶ 34] The agreement clearly expresses at § 1 that the rights given are granted in consideration for the purchase of land, whether it be the purchase of Parcel 1 or Parcel 2 of the Fish Creek Meadows Property. In addition, terms of the Parcel 1 purchase provide that if Parcel 1 was split, duplicate fishing and club rights would immediately issue with that newly split parcel. Section 3 of the agreement also specifies that the rights extended are given as an accommodation and shall be rent free; the only consideration given in return for such rights is the mutual obligations and acknowledgments expressed within the agreement. Obviously, the obligations referred to are those explicitly referenced within the agreement wherein the Marksteins promise to abide by the various terms identified within the agreement along with their ownership of the specified real property. The intention that the rights designated run with the land is further confirmed by the fact that the agreement expresses that these rights are not assignable in whole, or in part, except to any successor owner of the particular real estate (i.e., either Parcel 1 or Parcel 2). These successors are each classified as a member in good standing of the Fish Creek Meadows Homeowner's Association, Inc., generally defined as owners of real property within the association who are in compliance with the declared covenants, conditions, and restrictions, and such successors do not exceed the original number of owners originally granted the rights defined. In tandem with this idea, the licensee expressly acknowledges title of the licensor to the premises in the agreement and agrees never to assail, resist, or deny such title. Likewise, it is stated within the agreement that [n]o greater fishing rights shall be granted to any other Licensee as purchaser of a lot than those granted to Licensee hereunder. [¶ 35] Verbiage within the agreement details that the rights involved are to be used within a certain portion of the servient estate. In particular, the fishing rights are to be utilized within a legally described area of land with the specific legal description of this land attached as an exhibit to the agreement. Two separate sketch maps are also incorporated and attached to the agreement to further denote the applicable area of land involved. The fact that the agreement states that the agreement shall not be recorded is also not determinative, as the parties are allowed to execute and record a memorandum of the agreement. [¶ 36] Duration of the rights granted is also expressly stated within the agreement. The agreement at § 9 provides: This License Agreement shall be perpetual unless terminated as herein provided. The term of this License Agreement and the ownership of Parcel 1, notwithstanding, the Licensor may, at his election, unilaterally terminate this Agreement upon twenty (20) days written notice and failure to correct within that time, if Licensee or any successor licensee shall fail to: (a) comply with or abide by each and all of the provisions hereof; (b) keep all and singular Licensee's promises herein; (c) remain a member in good standing (as a member is defined in the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Fish Creek Meadows) of the Fish Creek Meadows Homeowner's Association, Inc., subject to Licensee's right to assign their interest herein to successive owners of Parcel 1 and provided that if notice of breach of the conditions is given three (3) times in any 12-month period then upon the fourth breach in such period this License may be terminated immediately without further notice[.] (Emphasis added.) The parties clearly intended that the rights granted would be granted permanently unless the Marksteins or their successors failed to abide by the terms of the agreement as defined. [7] Moreover, while the agreement allows for the unilateral termination of the agreement by the licensor, the right to terminate the agreement may not be exercised in an unfettered and unrestricted manner. Rather, termination may be effectuated only upon the occurrence of the specified events. This intention is further expressed in both the memoranda signed by the parties involving the agreements concerning both Parcel 1 and Parcel 2, which state Licensor has reserved and does reserve the right to terminate the License Agreement in accordance with its terms for failure on the part of the Licensee to perform its obligations. [¶ 37] The permanency of the rights granted is also implied within additional language contained in § 9 of the agreement which details that if the licensor provides substantially identical fly fishing opportunities through the establishment of The Lodge Club at the Crescent H Ranch or a similar club through the homeowner's association, the license shall be deemed to be suspended. In addition, should the Club or other entity be subsequently dissolved, the fishing rights shall be reinstated. [¶ 38] Similarly, although appellees argue that only a license is inferred because they are entitled to specify the access point for exercise of the fishing rights, the means of access via foot travel, the parking of vehicles with respect to such access, the type of fishing allowed, and they may restrict fishing by the licensees and their guests under certain conditions, such powers are limited. These limitations may only be enforced upon good faith consideration of the surrounding circumstances and, in the latter case, space availability and within specific times of the day or week in order to avoid overcrowding of the fishing habitats. Likewise, while an assignment of the fishing rights must be performed in writing, with the successive owners agreeing to be bound by each of the terms of the agreement and the licensor must first approve the form of any assignment agreement, the licensor must assert such right in good faith and cannot unreasonably withhold its approval. [¶ 39] The Marksteins paid substantial consideration, having paid the sum of $1,450,000.00 for Parcel 1 and approximately $1,600,000.00 for Parcel 2. This court noted in Masinter v. Markstein, 2002 WY 64, fn. 4, 45 P.3d 237, fn. 4 (Wyo.2002), that there was evidence that the fishing rights added at least $125,000.00 in value to each parcel within the subdivision. Mr. Markstein testified in his deposition that Mr. Thornton wanted $600,000.00 to grant similar fishing and club use rights when he attempted to negotiate for these rights previously. Substantial consideration indicates an easement. Bruce and Ely, at § 1:5 and those cases cited therein. [¶ 40] Last, we recognize that an express reservation of the power to cancel, revoke, or terminate the right may indicate a license. However, the power to terminate in the landowner does not necessarily mean that a license was created. Specifying a power to terminate for a particular reason or in limited circumstances may be seen as inconsistent with the unabridged right to revoke retained by one who grants a license. An easement may also be expressly subject to termination by the servient owner upon the occurrence of a specified event. Id. [¶ 41] As indicated previously, the parties expressed that the rights granted would be permanent in nature unless the Marksteins or their successors failed to abide by the terms of the agreement as defined. Thus, those rights of termination or revocation may not be exerted at will. Additionally, the licensor reserved all rights of ownership, including but not limited to the right to use or allow others to use the premises for fishing or any other purpose, and the right to mortgage, sell or otherwise encumber or dispose of the premises and to construct buildings, structures or otherwise make improvements to the premises. However, these reserved rights are specifically subject to the rights of the licensee expressed within the agreement. [¶ 42] Finally, the agreement states that the licensor specifically reserves the right to transfer his rights and obligations ... to his successor or assigns, by devise or under an instrument specifically designating such successor or assigns as a successor or assign and that any new successor or assign will be subject to and receive the benefits of the terms and conditions contained herein. (Emphasis added.) Critically, the agreement also explicitly states that [i]t is mutually agreed that all of the covenants and agreements herein contained shall extend to and be obligatory upon the successors and permitted assigns of the respective parties. The agreement goes on to provide that it may not be changed orally, but only in writing signed by the party against whom enforcement of any waiver, change, modification, or discharge is sought. This language clearly expresses the intent of the parties that the rights delineated would be continual. [¶ 43] Accordingly, we hold that the rights granted pursuant to the fishing license agreements constitute an easement running with the land. As we stated in Baker v. Pike , at ¶ 12: An easement is appurtenant `when the easement is created to benefit and does benefit the possessor of land in his use of the land.' This means that the easement must be created to benefit the owner of the easement as a possessor of a particular parcel of land. (Citations omitted.) Such is the case here. [¶ 44] In addition, appellees assert that even assuming that the agreements are easements, they are void under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-141 (LexisNexis 2003) because they do not sufficiently describe the location of the alleged easement. Section 34-1-141 provides: (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, easements across land executed and recorded after the effective date of this act which do not specifically describe the location of the easement are null and void and of no force and effect. ... (c) For purposes of this act [section] an easement or agreement which does not specifically describe the location of the easement or which grants a right to locate an easement at a later date shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of execution of the easement or agreement. If the specific description is not recorded within one (1) year then the easement or agreement shall be of no further force and effect. (d) For purposes of this act [section] the specific description required in an easement shall be sufficient to locate the easement and is not limited to a survey. [¶ 45] As indicated previously, language within the agreement provides that the rights involved are to be used within a particular region of the servient estate and includes a specific legal description of this land attached as an exhibit to the agreement. In addition, two separate sketch maps are also incorporated and attached to the agreement to further denote the applicable area of land involved. This description and demarcation is adequate to meet the requirements set forth by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 34-1-141.