Opinion ID: 2510351
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Scope And Width Of The Easement

Text: The district court ruled in this case that the Appellants' easement across the southern portion of Government Lot 2 is 12.2 feet in width and is not limited to agricultural use. The Appellants argue the easement is much wider than 12.2 feet. An instrument granting an easement is to be construed in connection with the intention of the parties and circumstances in existence at the time the easement was given and carried out. Argosy Trust ex rel. Its Trustee v. Wininger, 141 Idaho 570, 572, 114 P.3d 128, 130 (2005). That intent is a question of fact, and the trial court's findings on the issue will not be disturbed on appeal if supported by substantial and competent evidence. Id. In this case, the district court determined the scope and width of the easement in question based on substantial and competent evidence. For the district court's finding that the express easement was not limited in scope to agricultural use, the district court had the broad reservation language of the deed from the Millsaps to the Bakers. With respect to the finding that the Appellants' easement was only 12.2 feet in width in 1966, the district court relied on its own first-hand examination of the property in the company of counsel of the parties and testimony establishing 12.2 feet as the traveled surface of the access road. This evidence is contradicted, but evidence may be substantial and competent even if there is contradictory evidence on the record. Weaver, 134 Idaho at 696, 8 P.3d at 1239. Therefore, this Court affirms the district court's determination of the scope and width of the express easement across Government Lot 2. We express no opinion as to the width or scope of any possible easement by prescription or implied from prior use, leaving that to be resolved by the district court on remand. [4]