Opinion ID: 886661
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: ¶ 26 Did the District Court err as a matter of law in determining a public prescriptive easement exists to the Boadle Road? ¶ 27 On appeal, Jones does not challenge the District Court's findings of fact. Rather, he challenges the legal conclusions drawn from those facts. We review conclusions of law to determine whether the district court's interpretation of the law is correct. Han Farms, Inc. v. Molitor, 2003 MT 153, ¶ 10, 316 Mont. 249, ¶ 10, 70 P.3d 1238, ¶ 10. It is within the province of the trier of fact to weigh the evidence and assess the credibility of witnesses and we will not second-guess those determinations. Han Farms, ¶ 10. ¶ 28 In a nutshell, Jones argues the District Court erred in finding a public prescriptive easement exists to that portion of the Boadle Road that crosses his property because the road begins and ends on the servient landholder's (Jones') property. Jones argues the public prescriptive easement ends at the eastern terminus of the Boadle Bridge, the only bridge connecting the Boadle Road to the Canal Road, which is also partially located on Jones' property. Therefore, because Jones built and owns the current bridge, he argues he can either destroy the bridge to prevent the public from accessing it once they reach the end of the public easement, or he can continue to keep the gate on the bridge locked so the public cannot access it. Either way, without a determination the public also has a prescriptive easement to the bridge and Canal Road, the public can merely travel onto Jones' property and no further. According to Jones, since the litigated portion of the Boadle Road leads to nowhere, it was pointless for the District Court to find a public prescriptive easement to the road. ¶ 29 Jones' assertion that the easement goes nowhere because it begins and ends on his property is misleading. The portion of the Boadle Road litigated in the District Court is a small part of a much larger county road, Road No. 213, which runs for miles. The parties stipulated that the portion of Road No. 213 which runs from Jackson Corner to the eastern boundary of Jones' property is a county road. The road then continues west across Jones' property and connects to the Canal Road at the western terminus of the Boadle Bridge. The Canal Road then runs northwesterly to the Pishkun Reservoir and southeasterly, where it intersects with Highway 287. Contrary to Jones' assertion, the Boadle Road does not lead to nowhere. PLAA chose to only litigate that portion of the road to which Jones' predecessor in interest blocked off public access in 1999. However, that does not change the fact that the public has accessed that portion of the road from an established county road since the early 1900s. ¶ 30 Further, Jones is incorrect in his assertion that the prescriptive easement ends at the eastern terminus of the Boadle Bridge. The parties agreed in the Final Pre-Trial Order that the disputed portion of the Boadle Road is that portion which begins at the western boundary of Section 19, Township 22 North, Range 6 West (the eastern boundary of Jones' property), and continues west to where it intersects the Canal Road. Therefore, when the District Court concluded as a matter of law the public has acquired a prescriptive easement to use the Boadle Road, it is clear the easement includes access to that portion of Jones' property that crosses the canal and intersects with the Canal Road on the other side of the Boadle Bridge. ¶ 31 Additionally, the evidence presented at trial clearly established the public used the Boadle Road, including the Boadle Bridge, to access the Canal Road at the western terminus of the Boadle Road. In Han Farms, ¶ 24, this Court held that the scope of a prescriptive easement is based upon its use during the statutory period. Under our holding in Han Farms, the Boadle Bridge is clearly within the scope of the easement. Therefore, the public has a right to access the bridge and the land under the bridge without interference from Jones as the easement burdens the servient tenement, Jones' land, not merely the physical structure connecting the Boadle Road to the Canal Road. See § 70-17-103, MCA. Whether Jones has rights in the bridge itself is a question that was not litigated below and will not be addressed on appeal. ¶ 32 Finally, Jones would have this Court believe a new element is required to prove the existence of a prescriptive easement in Montana; that is, an easement cannot begin and end on the servient landowner's estate. This assertion is not supported. A prescriptive easement is created by operation of law in Montana. Han Farms, ¶ 12. The party claiming the easement must establish open, notorious, exclusive, adverse, continuous and uninterrupted use of the claimed easement for the statutory five-year period. Han Farms, ¶ 12; See § 70-19-404, MCA. We have not held the public must also prove that it must have egress from the servient tenement in order to establish a right to use an easement. We decline to do so under the present circumstances. ¶ 33 The District Court found the PLAA presented adequate evidence of the historical use of the Boadle Road to establish a public prescriptive easement. Specifically, the District Court found the road in question has been in existence since the early 1900s; the general public has used the road for various purposes including recreation, moving cattle to summer pasture, travel to work locations, transporting children to school, and accessing the town of Choteau for commerce and personal needs; the public use of the road for such purposes began in the early 1900s and continued unabated until late 1999 or early 2000; the early owners of the land over which the Boadle Road traverses were aware of the public use of the road during the time the public used it; without either a request or permission from the landowner, Teton County periodically maintained that portion of the road, including the Boadle Bridge, during the period of time the public used the Boadle Road; public users of the Boadle Road did not seek the landowner's permission to use the road; early owners of the Boadle Ranch believed the road was a public road, therefore, their permission was not required for the public to use the road. By his own admission, Jones acknowledges sufficient evidence exists in the record to support such findings. ¶ 34 Based on these facts, the District Court concluded as a matter of law the public has acquired a prescriptive easement to use the `Boadle Road' and that such easement was in existence prior to and including 1959. Jones has failed to satisfy his burden of establishing that the District Court's interpretation of the law was incorrect. Han Farms, ¶ 10. Accordingly, we affirm the District Court's determination that a prescriptive easement exists to the Boadle Road.