Opinion ID: 889702
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Nature of MRC's Easement.

Text: ¶ 16 Joukova does not challenge the validity of MRC's easement. As noted in the statement of facts above, a small portion of MRC's easement through Joukova's property was recorded in conjunction with the widening of Highway 12; the culvert and bridge, however, are not located in the part of the ditch covered by this recorded easement. MRC's rights at issue here, concerning the portion of the ditch that includes the culvert and bridge, are claimed through prescriptive use and as attendant rights to the water right. While MRC's rights are statutorily recognized in § 70-17-112, MCA, ([e]ach canal or ditch easement obtained by prescription. . . is included within the scope of this section) they are not created by statute, as the statute itself makes clear in subsection (4): [n]othing in this section establishes a secondary easement where none existed prior to April 14, 1981. ¶ 17 Prescriptive easements generally restrict the dominant owner to whatever was in place historically, since the right is governed by the character and extent of the use during the prescriptive period. Clark v. Heirs & Devisees of Dwyer, 2007 MT 237, ¶ 26, 339 Mont. 197, 170 P.3d 927 (citations omitted); Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 8.12 (Thomson Reuters 2011); § 70-17-106, MCA. MRC's easement rights thus include both the right to flow a certain amount of water during a prescribed period and, secondarily, the right to maintain the system designed to flow that water as it historically has done. ¶ 18 MRC's rights in Joukova's land must be balanced with Joukova's own rights as the owner of the fee. In Mattson, we described as longstanding and well-settled the principle that secondary easement rights must be exercised `in such a reasonable manner as not to needlessly increase the burden upon' or do `unnecessary injury to' the servient estate. Mattson, ¶ 47 (citing Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 4.10 (2000); Laden, 112 Mont. at 306, 116 P.2d at 884; Engel, ¶ 43). Joukova, in turn, may make use of the land in any lawful manner that [she] chooses, which use is not inconsistent with and does not interfere with the use and right reserved to the dominant tenement or estate. Flynn v. Siren, 219 Mont. 359, 361, 711 P.2d 1371, 1372 (1986) (quoting City of Missoula v. Mix, 123 Mont. 365, 372, 214 P.2d 212, 216 (1950)). Historical uses made of the servient tenement during the prescriptive period also bear upon Joukova's rights in the servient estate. Bruce & Ely, The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land at §§ 8.24, 8.27; 25 Am. Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 84 (2004) ([w]hen the character of an easement is once fixed, no material alterations ordinarily can be made by either the servient owner or the easement owner without the other's consent.).