Opinion ID: 2363083
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Issue IIIntent of LLC

Text: [¶ 13] Although necessary and beneficial to the Hansuld property, it remains to be determined whether the creation of an easement was intended by LLC when it originally divided the property. The district court, in finding that LLC did not intend to convey an easement to a water line, looked to the express agreement at the time of transfer that exchanged an easement for the sewer line for the access easement. The district court reasoned that the parties must have known about the existence of the water line and the failure to include a grant of an easement for a water line at the same time reveals an intent not to grant such easement. We agree with the Hansulds that this is pure speculation on the part of the district court, unsupported by any record evidence. [¶ 14] A legal presumption exists that the intent of LLC was to convey the property in the same condition as it was at the time of the transaction. Hansuld I, ¶ 19, 81 P.3d at 219; Shirran, 987 P.2d at 143. Restatement (Third) of Property: Servitudes § 2.12 (2000) states: Unless a contrary intent is expressed or implied, the circumstance that prior to a conveyance severing the ownership of land into two or more parts, a use was made of one part for the benefit of another, implies that a servitude was created to continue the prior use if, at the time of the severance, the parties had reasonable grounds to expect that the conveyance would not terminate the right to continue the prior use. The following factors tend to establish that the parties had reasonable grounds to expect that the conveyance would not terminate the right to continue the prior use: (1) the prior use was not merely temporary or casual, and (2) continuance of the prior use was reasonably necessary to enjoyment of the parcel, estate, or interest previously benefited by the use, and (3) existence of the prior use was apparent or known to the parties, or (4) the prior use was for underground utilities serving either parcel. The water line meets all these factors. Lariat presented no evidence to adequately rebut the presumption that an easement for the water line was intended. Under the specific facts and circumstances of this case, we find the district court's decision granting summary judgment to Lariat on this issue was in error.