Opinion ID: 874134
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

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.
The district court below bifurcated the proceedings, separating Appellants' claims under the easement agreement from any other claims relating to the easement. It then found that there was no prevailing party and denied each side's cross-motions for attorney fees. Appellants contend that it was premature for the district court to enter this order because midway through a bifurcated action is too soon to identify a prevailing party. Both sides also argue that the district court should have awarded them attorney fees.
Costs are generally allowed as a matter of right to the prevailing party. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(A). The courts may also award attorney fees to a prevailing party pursuant to statute or contract. I.R.C.P. 54(e)(1). For both costs and fees, Rule 54(d)(1)(B) governs the determination of who, if anyone, is the prevailing party. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B), 54(e)(1). This rule provides that the trial court shall in its sound discretion consider the final judgment or result of the action. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B) (emphasis added). Judges are therefore empowered to award costs and fees pertaining either to a final judgment or to an action that has been completely adjudicated. The district court's ruling on costs and fees was not premature because a partial judgment is a final judgment as required in Rule 54(d)(1)(B). A judgment is final if it has been certified as such pursuant to Rule 54(b)(1). I.R.C.P. 54(a). A partial judgment certified as final is not subject to revision. I.R.C.P. 54(b)(1). The Amended Partial Judgment in this action has been certified as a final judgment with respect to Appellants' claims under the easement agreement. Because the judgment is final and is not subject to the court's revision, it was within the court's discretion to award costs and fees. The district court therefore could identify a prevailing party. [7]
The court's decision as to which party prevailed is subject to abuse-of-discretion review. J.R. Simplot Co. v. Chemetics Int'l, Inc., 130 Idaho 255, 258, 939 P.2d 574, 577 (1997). In examining whether a court has abused its discretion, this Court considers: (1) whether the trial court correctly perceived the issue as one of discretion; (2) whether the trial court acted within the outer boundaries of this discretion and consistently with the legal standards applicable to the specific choices available to it; and (3) whether the trial court reached its decision by an exercise of reason. Sun Valley Shopping Ctr., Inc. v. Idaho Power, 119 Idaho 87, 94, 803 P.2d 993, 1000 (1991). To identify the prevailing party, the court considers the partial judgment in relation to the relief sought by the requested parties. I.R.C.P. 54(d)(1)(B). The district court may apportion costs and fees between the parties, and where the parties have each succeeded on some issues but not on others, the district court may find that neither party has prevailed. E.g. Trilogy Network Sys., Inc. v. Johnson, 144 Idaho 844, 847-48, 172 P.3d 1119, 1122-23 (2007); Israel v. Leachman, 139 Idaho 24, 27, 72 P.3d 864, 867 (2003). Here, the district court's decision satisfied the first element of the abuse-of-discretion analysis by recognizing that its decision was discretionary. The court below also acted within the bounds of its discretion and through an exercise of reason when it found that none of the parties had prevailed. Appellants sought to quiet title to a thirty-foot-wide easement pursuant to the easement agreement and to enjoin the Comettos from placing structures or obstacles in or near the roadway. Appellants prevailed in part in that the court quieted title in their favor both to the roadway itself as well as a secondary easement, which included two snow-storage areas. The Comettos must also keep the roadway clear. Appellants seek a number of other kinds of relief, including the right to upgrade and realign the road, but these claims have yet to be fully adjudicated, as they rest on other easement theories. The Comettos prevailed in part because the court found that the agreement conveyed an easement that, in most places, does not span a full thirty feet. They also may retain the mature trees along the travelway, even those within the secondary easement. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by finding that there had been no prevailing party in the first stage of the bifurcated proceedings.
Appellants requested attorney fees on appeal under the terms of the easement agreement, which provides for attorney fees and costs on appeal to be awarded to a prevailing party in any dispute relating to the interpretation or enforcement of the agreement. [8] Appellants do not prevail on either of the two issues they raised on appeal: (1) whether the district court should have allowed the trees within the secondary easement to be cut down; and (2) whether the court should have awarded costs and fees below to Appellants. Since they do not prevail on appeal, Appellants are not entitled to attorney fees under the easement agreement. The Comettos claim attorney fees under I.C. § 12-120(3), which mandates a fee award to the prevailing party in civil actions involving commercial transactions. [9] Blimka v. My Web Wholesaler, LLC, 143 Idaho 723, 728, 152 P.3d 594, 599 (2007). They also seek fees under I.C. § 12-121, which allows courts discretion to award fees to the prevailing party in appeals that have been brought or defended frivolously, unreasonably or without foundation. [10] Berg v. Kendall, 147 Idaho 571, 579, 212 P.3d 1001, 1009 (2009). Where both parties prevail in part on appeal, this Court may deny fees. See Boll v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 140 Idaho 334, 344-45, 92 P.3d 1081, 1091-92 (2004) (finding no prevailing party under § 12-121 because both the appeal and the cross-appeal failed); Keller v. Inland Metals All Weather Cond., Inc., 139 Idaho 233, 241, 76 P.3d 977, 985 (2003) (referring to § 12-120(3)). While the Comettos correctly note that Appellants were simply inviting this Court to second-guess the district court's findings regarding trees along the easement, the Comettos also cross-appealed the district court's ruling on costs and attorney fees. Since they did not prevail on their cross-appeal, as discussed above, the Comettos are not entitled to attorney fees on appeal. Without a prevailing party, it is not necessary to discuss whether this appeal involves a commercial transaction under § 12-120(3) or whether the appeal was brought or defended unreasonably under § 12-121. The Comettos also requested fees under the easement agreement, but for the reasons cited above, they are not the prevailing party under this contract provision and therefore are not entitled to fees.