Opinion ID: 901196
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Extent of Easement and Injunctive Relief

Text: [¶ 9.] Parker also argues the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding the prescriptive easement was 22 feet wide. This argument is misplaced. Although the trial court's findings refer to a 22 foot easement, the judgment does not. The judgment only declares the existence of a prescriptive easement and is silent as to the nature or width of the easement. The judgment does two things: first, it grants a prescriptive easement and second, it enjoins Parker from blocking the rear entrance to Trust's rear parking area. The judgment states: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That an easement by prescription exists for the benefit of Plaintiff's property legally described as follows: The West 50 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9 in Block 29 of Pettigrew's Addition to the City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, also known as 816 West 11th Street, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Across Defendant's property legally described as follows: The East 100 feet of Lots 7, 8 and 9 in Block 29 of Pettigrew's Addition to the City of Sioux Falls, Minnehaha County, South Dakota, also known as 227 North Prairie Avenue, Sioux Falls, South Dakota. Defendant, her employees, customers and invitees are hereby enjoined from blocking the 22 foot entrance to rear parking area of Plaintiff's property by parking their vehicles in the entrance or obstructing the easement in any other manner. [¶ 10.] Under South Dakota law, a judgment is the final determination of the rights of the parties in an action or proceeding. SDCL 15-6-54(a). The judgment declares the existence of a prescriptive easement. It also includes an injunction prohibiting Parker from blocking the 22 foot entrance to [Trust's] rear parking area. We review injunctive relief under an abuse of discretion standard and will not reverse unless we find an abuse of discretion. Ladson v. BPM Corp., 2004 SD 74, ¶ 15, 681 N.W.2d 863, 867 (citing Hendrickson v. Wagners, Inc., 1999 SD 74, ¶ 14, 598 N.W.2d 507, 510). In this context, abuse of discretion `can simply be an error of law or it might denote a discretion exercised to an unjustified purpose, against reason and evidence'. Id. Trust presented testimony of the need for a 22 foot entrance to enter and exit its rear parking area. The witnesses pointed out the difficulty of being limited only to the 10 foot opening when snow accumulated in the winter. Additionally, the trial court had before it several aerial photos depicting the two properties and the width of the opening to Trust's parking area. Based upon the evidence, we are unable to say that the trial court abused its discretion in granting the injunction. The judgment is affirmed.