Opinion ID: 883820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: We restate the issues on appeal as follows:

Text: 1. Must the elements of a prescriptive easement be proved by a preponderance of evidence or by clear and convincing evidence? 2. Did the District Court err in concluding that Wareings established all elements of their prescriptive ditch easement claim? 3. Under the doctrine of estoppel, are Wareings precluded from asserting a prescriptive easement right against Schreckendgust after they acquired an express ditch easement from a neighboring landowner over property previously owned by Schreckendgust? 4. Did the District Court err when it failed to expressly limit the scope of Wareings' prescriptive ditch easement both as to location and method of maintenance? 5. Is Schreckendgust entitled to attorney fees under § 70-17-112, MCA? 6. Should this case have been remanded for a new trial?