Opinion ID: 2633467
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Did the District Court Err in Failing to Make Findings of Fact as to Whether Bruce Bedke's Failure to Fill the Holes Dug by Jared Bedke Violated the Easement and the Pooling Agreement?

Text: While performing maintenance on the pipeline, Jared Bedke used a backhoe to dig several holes in Pickett Ranch's land. The undisputed evidence is that he delayed approximately one year in filling in those holes. On appeal, Pickett Ranch asks, It is respectfully requested that the district court's judgment be reversed on the basis that it failed to make a finding concerning whether Bedke's maintenance practices were unlawful. The owner of an easement has the right to enter the servient estate in order to maintain, repair, or protect the easement. Drew v. Sorensen, 133 Idaho 534, 989 P.2d 276 (1999); Abbott v. Nampa School Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 808 P.2d 1289 (1991). The easement owner may do so, however, only when necessary and in a reasonable manner as not to increase needlessly the burden on the servient estate. Id. The district court did not make any findings as to whether Bedke performed the maintenance of the pipeline in a reasonable manner or whether he needlessly increased the burden on the servient estate. The district court's findings regarding the holes dug by Jared Bedke were as follows: 14. During the year 2001, some large holes were discovered on the land owned by Pickett Ranch & Sheep Co., which had been made with a backhoe. 15. Although the Bedke family promised to refill the holes, the holes were left empty. 16. The holes posed a hazard to animals and to people. 17. A gate could not function properly because of the dirt/holes. Following the issuance of the district court's findings of fact, Pickett Ranch filed a motion to amend the court's findings of fact and conclusions of law. It did not request any further findings regarding Bedke's maintenance practices. The requested amendments to the findings of fact dealt with the relocation of the upper reach of the pipeline. Rule 52 of the Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure provides, No party may assign as error the lack of findings unless the party raised such issue to the trial court by an appropriate motion. Because Pickett Ranch did not raise to the district court the alleged lack of findings regarding Bedke's maintenance practices, it cannot assign the lack of findings on that issue as error on appeal.