Opinion ID: 901745
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Damages for Failure to Maintain

Text: [¶ 19.] Under the terms of the grant, Halls had a duty to maintain the easement. The trial court found that since 1992, when Defendants Don and Sherrie Hall acquired their property, they have performed maintenance upon said road, including the purchase of gravel, blading and other maintenance, and have plowed the snow from the road each winter. [¶ 20.] In addition, the record reflects that in 1998, DeHavens spent $5,700 to improve the easement roadway from the gate to just past the driveway of their new home. Between 1998 and 2000, they spent an additional $661.20 on this section of the roadway that they used. While DeHavens sought contribution from Halls toward the $5,700 expended, they did not seek contributions from the two other property owners who had a right to use the easement. Furthermore, DeHavens did not show that these improvements and maintenances were necessary to prevent damage to the servient estate. See infra ¶ 23 et seq. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in declining to award DeHavens damages for the $5,700 or the $661.20 they spent improving and maintaining the easement from the gate to their driveway. [¶ 21.] At the time of trial, according to DeHavens' and Halls' experts, the entire easement roadway was also in need of rework and gravel. The trial court granted DeHavens' request for declaratory relief, concluding that Halls were responsible for maintaining the easement across DeHavens' property. The court ordered Halls to reasonably maintain the easement during the course of their use of the easement. [¶ 22.] On appeal, DeHavens contend that the declaratory relief was insufficient. They reassert entitlement to the $5,700 for their 1998 improvement work as well as $661.20 for their maintenance work between 1998 and 2004. They further seek monetary recovery for current repairs and maintenance, which DeHavens' contractor estimated would cost $9,700. [¶ 23.] An easement holder (the dominant estate, in this case Halls) owes a limited duty to the landowner (the servient estate, DeHavens) to repair, and maintain the easement. The Restatement (Third) of Property (Servitudes) § 4.13 (2000) defines this duty: Unless the terms of a servitude determined under § 4.1 provide otherwise, duties to repair and maintain the servient estate and the improvements used in the enjoyment of a servitude are as follows: (1) The beneficiary of an easement or profit has a duty to the holder of the servient estate to repair and maintain the portions of the servient estate and the improvements used in the enjoyment of the servitude that are under the beneficiary's control, to the extent necessary to (a) prevent unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of the servient estate, or (b) avoid liability of the servient-estate owner to third parties. [¶ 24.] Thus, absent express language in the easement, the beneficiary of the dominant estate has no duty to maintain the easement to the standards the servient tenant may desire for the servient tenant's use of the easement. The Idaho Supreme Court explained: The owner of a servient estate has no duty to maintain the easement. The duty of maintaining the easement rests with the easement owner ( i.e. dominant estate), even when the servient owner landowner uses the easement. That duty requires the easement owner maintain, repair, and protect the easement so as not to create an additional burden on the servient estate or an interference that would damage the land, such as flooding of the servient estate. This duty to maintain does not mean that the easement owner is required to maintain and repair the easement for the benefit of the servient estate.    [A]bsent a showing that the easement owners' maintenance of the easement created an additional burden or interference with the servient estate, the servient estate cannot dictate the standard by which the easement should be maintained, expend funds to maintain it to the level desired by the servient estate and then seek reimbursement for those expenditures and contribution for future expenditures from the easement owners. Walker v. Boozer, 140 Idaho 451, 455-456, 95 P.3d 69, 73-74 (2004) (internal citations omitted). See also Baya v. Ulrich, 209 So.2d 702, 706 (Fla.Ct.App.1968) (stating the dominant owner of the easement . . . [does] not have a duty to repair and maintain it for the benefit of the . . . servient owner); Lamb v. Lamb, 177 N.C. 150, 98 S.E. 307, 309 (1919); 2 Thompson on Real Property § 428 at 709 (1961 Replacement) (stating the owner of an easement is under no obligation to make repairs except as he may desire to do so for his own advantage, or unless required to do so by contract or prescription). In the opposite context, this Court recognized the rule in Vander Heide v. Boke Ranch, Inc., 2007 SD 69, ¶ 49, 736 N.W.2d 824, 838. This Court allowed the dominant estate to gravel an easement because there was no evidence that the servient estate had been burdened, injured, or infringed upon by the graveling. Id. [¶ 25.] Therefore, Halls' duty to maintain the easement was limited to the extent that Halls did not create an additional burden upon or injure DeHavens' land. The trial court found, and the evidence reflects, that Halls did perform some maintenance on the easement. There was no evidence, however, that the state of the easement in 1998 injured DeHavens' estate. Instead, DeHavens' $5,700 was spent in 1998 to improve the two-track trail from the gate to their new home. Their expenditure was for taking out the road grade, placing new material on the road, ditching the north side of the easement, and installing a culvert. While these improvements and the later maintenances costing $661.20 were desirable to DeHavens, they were unilateral improvements for their benefit. While Halls' maintenance of the easement during the time covered by the $5,700 and $661.20 claims may not have been to the standard DeHavens desired, DeHavens did not prove that Halls' maintenance (or lack thereof) unreasonably interfered with DeHavens' enjoyment of the estate or created a burden on the estate. Under these circumstances, the trial court did not err in declining to award those expenditures as damages for DeHavens' improvements to the easement. [¶ 26.] Concerning the $9,700 for current repairs/maintenance, DeHavens presented evidence that some of those repairs were necessary to fill holes and make the easement passable. The evidence did not, however, distinguish between improvements and repairs that DeHavens desired for their use, and the maintenance or repair that was necessary to prevent harm to the servient estate. The portion of this request that related to preventing harm to DeHavens' land was recoverable as a lack of maintenance in some areas was obviously harming the servient estate. The evidence is undisputed that the impassable portion caused Halls to drive around the easement on to DeHavens' land. DeHavens, however, presented no evidence itemizing the amount necessary to repair that section of the easement. The rest of DeHavens' claim related to improvements and repairs DeHavens desired to facilitate their personal use of the easement. They did not tie the balance of this claim to repairs that would be necessary to keep the easement from harming the servient estate. Furthermore, DeHavens asked for declaratory relief that Halls be ordered to make the repairs to the easement, or in the alternative be ordered to pay DeHavens $9,700. The court's judgment fulfilled DeHavens' request for alternative relief by ordering Halls to reasonably maintain the easement and repair the easement during the course of their use of the easement. Because the trial court granted DeHavens' alternative request for relief, we affirm on this issue.