Opinion ID: 2262828
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Is the Lusby Easement ambiguous?

Text: [¶ 10] Applying the standard of review set forth above, we begin our analysis by examining the Lusby Easement closely to determine if it provides an unambiguous expression of the intentions of the parties, or if it is ambiguous because it can be read more than one way. The Landowners and the Commission agree that the Easement unambiguously provides that the landward boundary of the walking easement is a line located one hundred feet from the high water line of the river. It is only the streamside boundary that is in dispute. The Landowners contend that the Easement clearly and unambiguously states that the streamside boundary of the Easement is the high water line of the river. The Commission also asserts that the Easement is clear and unambiguous, but claims that it establishes the middle of the river as the streamside boundary of the walking easement. [¶ 11] The Landowners argue that the Plat and Survey document, incorporated by reference as part of the Lusby Easement, provides a metes and bounds legal description of the Easement, including the land encumbered and the boundaries. This description, they contend, designates the high water line of the river as the streamside boundary of the Lusby Easement. However, the description contained in the Plat and Survey is not a metes and bounds description. A metes and bounds description operates, in its most common format, by delineating the external boundaries of a parcel of land. The external metes and bounds of the property are recited, in serial fashion, until there is a closure with the beginning point. More specifically, the description is made up of a series of calls, each of which is composed of (1) a course or direction and (2) a distance. When the calls finally close with the beginning point, the description is complete. 14 Powell on Real Property § 81A.05[2], at 81A-83 (2000). A key characteristic of a metes and bounds description is that it describes a complete boundarythe boundsstarting at a point of beginning and returning to that same point of beginning. Accordingly, a description by metes and bounds, whether along natural or artificial boundaries or by courses and distances, must be by continuous lines, one commencing where the other leaves off and the final line returning to the point of beginning. III American Law of Property § 12.105, at 413 (1952). A deed in which the metes and bounds description did not close on the north boundary line is faulty. Arndt v. Sheridan Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, 429 P.2d 326, 327 (Wyo.1967). [¶ 12] We quoted this example of a metes and bounds description in Barrett v. Guernsey, 652 P.2d 395, 396 n. 1 (Wyo.1982): Beginning at the Southwest corner of Lot 32, West Subdivision to the Town of Guernsey, Platte County, State of Wyoming, and considering the South line of said Lot 32 to bear South 89° 40' West with all bearings herein being relative thereto; thence South 89° 40' West, 138 feet to a line of old fence posts; thence North 12° 35' East, along said line of old fence posts, 40.0 feet; thence North 77° 25' West, 25 feet to a post; thence North 12° 35' East 21.5 feet; thence South 77° 25' East, 25 feet; thence North 12° 35' East, 287.33 feet; thence North 89° 40' East, 60.32 feet to the Northwest corner of said Lot 32; thence South 00° 17' East, along the West line of said Lot 32, 340.0 feet to the Point of Beginning, containing 0.8 acres more or less. Another example can be found in the Lusby Easement, where metes and bounds descriptions are given for the two parking lots. The description of Parking Lot No. 2: Begin[s] at the northwesterly corner of the Parcel being described, which corner and point is located in the north line of said NE¼ NW¼, Section 1 at S. 89° 16' E., 274.7 feet from the northwesterly corner thereof; thence from said point of beginning, S. 89° 16' E., 200.0 feet along said north line of the NE¼ NW¼, to a point and northeasterly corner of said Parcel; thence S. 5° 20' E., 405.7 feet to the southeast corner of said Parcel; thence N. 89° 16' W., 200.00 feet to the southwest corner of the Parcel being described; thence N. 5° 20' W., 405.7 feet to the point of beginning and containing 1.85 acres, more or less. Both examples describe a complete outer boundary surrounding a parcel of land, beginning and ending at the same point, and specifying the acreage of the parcel, more or less. [¶ 13] In contrast, the Plat and Survey's description of the walking easement does not set forth the boundaries of a parcel of real property. It describes only a single easement line 100 feet from the high water line. The description does not begin and end at the same point. It begins at point 1, located between Sections 1 and 36, and ends at point 55, a different location on the boundary of Section 35. It does not describe the boundary of a parcel of land containing a specified number of acres, but rather an easement line with a total length of 10,977.1 feet or 2.08 miles, more or less. [¶ 14] All parties agree that this single easement line described in the Plat and Survey is intended to be the landward boundary of the walking easement. [1] What is missing from the language of the Easement documents, however, is any explicit designation of the streamside boundary of the walking easement. Nowhere in the Lusby Easement is there any explicit designation of the streamside boundary. [¶ 15] The Landowners urge us to interpret the Easement documents as specifying the high water mark as the streamside boundary. They repeatedly point out that the high water line is specifically marked on the map, and can be relocated even now based on the description provided in the Lusby Easement. While that may be true, it does not tell us whether the high water line was meant to be a boundary line, or only a reference for locating the landward side of the walking easement. Nothing in the language of the Lusby Easement answers that question. On the map included within the Plat and Survey, the high water line is marked with a light line of long dashes and three dots. [2] The boundaries of the parking lots and boat launching ramp are marked with dark lines of one long dash and two short dashes, and this same dark line is used to mark the landward boundary of the walking easement. [3] The difference between the lines is not explained on the map or elsewhere in the Lusby Easement. However, the fact that the high water line is marked differently from the other boundary lines suggests that the high water line was meant to be something other than a boundary line. What that is remains ambiguous. [¶ 16] Both parties rely on Glover v. Giraldo, 824 P.2d 552 (Wyo.1992). The Commission cites the case for the rule that Where a deed describes land bounded by a non-navigable stream and names the stream as a monument, a presumption exists that the grant extends to the center and the thread of the stream is the true boundary. Id. at 554. The Landowners cite it because The presumption is rebuttable by any words which clearly indicate an intention of the grantor to restrict the grant to the edge, shore, or some point other than the thread of the stream. Id. at 555. The presumption stated in Glover does not help the Commission, however, because the Lusby Easement does not expressly name the North Platte River as a monument or boundary. It refers only to a permanent public walking easement, one hundred (100) feet in width, for public fishing and migratory waterfowl hunting on the North Platte River. Glover does not help the Landowners, either, because there are no words in the Lusby Easement indicating a clear intent to place the boundary at the edge of the river or anywhere else. The Plat and Survey refer to A Strip 100 feet in width, as measured 100 feet to the right from the right and northerly High Water Line of the North Platte River, but never expressly states that the high water line is meant to be the boundary of the walking easement. The inherent ambiguity in the Lusby Easement is that it simply does not say what the streamside boundary of the walking easement was intended to be. [¶ 17] The Landowners rely most heavily on the fact that the walking easement is described as one hundred (100) feet in width in the granting document, and as a Strip 100 feet in width in the Plat and Survey. Because the landward boundary of the Easement is located 100 feet from the high water line, and the walking easement is a strip 100 feet in width, the Landowners maintain that the high water line must necessarily be the streamside boundary of the walking easement. [¶ 18] This interpretation is entirely plausible. However, as the district court recognized, the language highlighted by the Landowners must be considered in context. We interpret the Easement documents as a whole, and meaning should be afforded to all of the language used by the parties if that can be done and a reasonable construction achieved. Quin Blair Enterprises, Inc. v. Julien Const. Co., 597 P.2d 945, 951 (Wyo. 1979). We must, therefore, also consider the language of the Lusby Easement stating that the purpose of the walking easement is to allow public fishing and migratory waterfowl hunting on the North Platte River. [4] This purpose is confirmed by the title of the document: Permanent Easement for Public Fishing, Migratory Waterfowl Hunting, and Boat Launching. [¶ 19] The Commission argues that these stated purposes would be utterly frustrated if the Landowners are correct that the streamside boundary of the walking easement is the high water line. As the district court took note, the water of the North Platte River runs as high as the high water mark only during a short time in the spring. At all other times, there will be a strip of dry land between the high water line and the water in the river. If the Landowners are correct, and the Easement is bounded by the high water line, the public has no right to cross the strip of dry land to get from the Easement to the river. [¶ 20] As the district court wrote, any fisherman knows [5] that it is nearly impossible to cast a fishing line, either bait, lure, or fly, across any distance of open ground to a river, or to reel in a fish across a strip of dry land. In addition, if hunters were unable to have their dogs go in the river to retrieve downed birds, they would be faced with the choice of either shooting only those birds certain to fall onto the walkway, again a near impossibility, or abandoning those birds that fall into a river which, apart from the obvious ethical problems, has criminal ramifications ( Wyo. Game and Fish Commission Regulations, Ch. 14, Sec. 4(a): No person shall wound or kill any migratory bird without making a reasonable effort to retrieve it and reduce it to possession). [¶ 21] There is a clear conflict in the Lusby Easement between the stated width of the walking easement (100 feet) and the stated purposes of the walking easement (public fishing, migratory waterfowl hunting, and boat launching). Our decision in Rouse v. Munroe, 658 P.2d 74, 76 (Wyo.1983), provides useful precedent for dealing with such a conflict. In that case, Mr. Munroe had granted Mr. Rouse an easement that was described as covering approximately 10 acres, more or less. The stated purpose of the easement was to allow Mr. Rouse to construct a dam for the purpose of a stock water reservoir and in accordance with [the] application dated September 26, 1955 which is on file in the State Engineer's Office. Id. The referenced application proposed a dam with the high-water line 17 feet above the creek bottom and a capacity of 162.9 acre feet of water. When the dam was constructed, the resulting reservoir was not 10 acres, as described in the easement, but more than 15 acres. Mr. Munroe sought to enjoin Mr. Rouse from flooding any more than 10 acres of his land. [¶ 22] We noted that our basic purpose was to determine the intent of the parties as embodied in the instrument, just as we are asked to do in any other case involving the construction of a contract. Id. at 77. We then said: The parties to this appeal both contend that the easement agreement is clear on its face and that the intent of the parties can be determined from within the four corners. With this contention we cannot agree. From our viewpoint, the language contained in the easement agreement can be read in two ways. First of all, the contract can be read to provide an easement for the construction and maintenance of a stock-watering reservoir with a capacity water level of 17 feet above the creek bottom at the dam site. From another point of view, the contract can be read to provide for an easement of ten acres of land for the purpose of inundating that area for maintenance of a stock-watering reservoir. Given this double meaning, we believe it is necessary to resort to extrinsic evidence in order to determine the actual intent of the contracting parties. Id. at 78. Based on the extrinsic evidence in that case, we concluded that the intent was to establish a reservoir with a capacity of 162.9 acre feet, and that the use of the `10 acres, more or less' language by the parties was merely an estimation on their part of the amount of acreage that would be inundated. Id. [¶ 23] Applying similar reasoning here, we conclude that the Lusby Easement is ambiguous. First, the language can be read to establish an easement for the purpose of fishing and migratory waterfowl hunting, with its streamside boundary at the middle of the river. From another point of view, the language can be read to establish a walking easement 100 feet in width with the streamside boundary at the high water line. Giving effect to both readings is impossible. We therefore agree with the district court that the inconsistency between the seemingly restricted walk way for fishermen and hunters on one hand, and, on the other hand, the expressed intent within the easement to allow fishing and migratory bird hunting ... creates an ambiguity within the easement.