Opinion ID: 2464541
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Scope Of The Established Easement For Perfected Users

Text: Price contends that the superior court erred in its findings concerning the easement's volume of use, seasonality of use, width, and allowance for improvements. Because the easement is limited to snowmachinersas described abovewe review the superior court's findings with this narrower focus in mind. When reviewing findings by the superior court, we abide by the general principle that [a]lthough the use made of a prescriptive easement may evolve beyond the original prescriptive uses, new uses cannot substantially increase the burden on the servient estate or change the nature and character of the easement's original use. [33] In other words, the scope of an easement does not need to remain static, but changes in its use must remain within the bounds of what a landowner in [Price's] position . . . should reasonably have expected to lose by failing to interrupt the adverse use before the prescriptive period had run. [34]
At the heart of Price's claim is the contention that snowmachine traffic significantly increased during and after the ten-year prescriptive period: the winter of 1988-89 to the winter of 1998-99. [35] Price claimed that the snowmachiners' lease of a new parking lot in 1996the Jones lotled to increases in traffic beyond the volume of use at the beginning of the prescriptive period in 1988-89. Several witnesses testified that this lot was used by snowmachiners to get to the Caribou Hills area or to access the Snomad clubhouse. Price argued that the parking lot allowed more snowmachiners to access the trail that crosses his property. To support his claim at the 2006 trial, Price introduced considerable testimony, much of it conflicting, about the increased parking capacity of the lots near his property. But the superior court concluded: [P]arking availability does not inform this court in which direction and over which trail an [off-loaded] snowmachine or RV from the Jones lot traveled. The superior court found that, while there has been increased snowmachine use in the Caribou Hills generally, the use of snowmachines over Price's land cannot be said to have increased or decreased significantly from the use that was being made of the easement area before the Jones parking lot was created in 1996. [36] Our review of the record confirms that the superior court did not clearly err in its 2007 finding that snowmachine traffic across Price's land did not significantly increase above the level that existed during the prescriptive period. We recognize that [an easement] holder is not entitled to cause unreasonable damage to the servient estate or interfere unreasonably with its enjoyment. [37] But this consideration must be balanced against the principle that [t]he manner, frequency, and intensity of [an easement's] use may change over time to take advantage of developments in technology and to accommodate normal development of the dominant estate or enterprise benefitted by the servitude. [38] The superior court found that [a]ny increase in snowmachine traffic has been reasonable and consistent with traditional uses of the easement area[,] and the evidence supports this finding.
Price also contends that the superior court erred in ruling that it would not constrain the seasonality of the easement's use. In Price I we instructed the superior court to define the easement's scope by imposing restrictions upon it, including potentially limiting the use to certain seasons. [39] The superior court's most recent findings did not limit the seasonality of the easement's use; instead, the superior court explained: Damage to Price's property can be minimized by restricting use of the easement area to winter time use when the ground is frozen and covered with snow. But there are hunters, hikers, recreational RV users and other persons whose only access to their camps or residences or Caribou Hills is use of the easement area and the unavailability of the easement area during the non-winter months would violate their rights to prescriptive use. Given our holding that the superior court's findings only have established a prescriptive easement for snowmachiners, the superior court's failure to define the seasonal limits of the trail's usebased on the understanding that other users accessed the trail year-roundrequires remand. The superior court must establish the seasonal limitations on use of the easement by snowmachiners. This is necessary because evidence at trial included photos showing deep ruts on Price's land filled with water; it is clear that use of the trail when the ground is not frozen has indeed caused damage. Price testified the damage was caused by use of the trail by both snowmachiners and other users too late in the spring when the ground starts to thaw, and there was no conflicting evidence presented on this point. If necessary, the superior court may solicit input from the parties on the appropriate measure to use to determine when the ground is too soft for snowmachiners to travel across it without damaging the land, and how the trail may be marked to signal that it is closed to snowmachine traffic at the end of the snowmachine season.
The superior court's 2007 order concluded that easement holders: [S]hould be allowed to remove deadfall and willows prior to freeze up for purposes of maintaining the trail and for safety. [They] should be able to place signs along side the trail clearly identifying the boundaries of the trail and there should be no prohibition on grooming which does no damage to the property of [Price]. These types of activities are consistent with the prescriptive use, and we find no error in this portion of the superior court's ruling. The Restatement (Third) of Property allows for the holder of an easement: [T]o make any use of the servient estate that is reasonable for enjoyment of the servitude, including the right to construct, improve, repair, and maintain improvements that are reasonably necessary. The right of the easement . . . owner is qualified, however, by the general principle that the use may not interfere unreasonably with the enjoyment of the servient estate.[ [40] ] We affirm the superior court's ruling that snowmachiners may clear, mark, and groom the trail to accommodate responsible use and enjoyment of the easement. Marking the trail, picking up deadfall, and grooming the trail to establish a defined path are certainly consistent with the snowmachiners' right to improve . . . and maintain improvements that are reasonably necessary for their enjoyment of the trail. Clearing the trail and marking it should help snowmachiners use the easement without damaging their snowmachines or themselves, and should minimize the number of snowmachiners who veer off the trail and trespass on Price's land. We also recognize the potential for abuse that comes with grooming a trail and making it easier to ride. Price argues that the improved trail allowed increases in speed to possibly 100 miles per hour. The superior court found that [t]here was evidence, mostly anecdotal, that some users of snowmachines . . . drink alcohol to excess and travel on their machines at unsafe speeds and act irresponsibly towards the property of others. While easement holders may make improvements that are reasonably necessary to enjoy their servitude, the Restatement makes clear that this right is qualified by the right of the landowner to avoid unreasonable interference with the quiet enjoyment of his or her property. [41] The evidence at the first trial established that snowmachiners used the trail across Price's land between the winter of 1988-89 and the winter of 1998-99 to gain access to Caribou Hills recreational area. There was no evidence that the Snomads or other snowmachine users needed to cross Price's property at excessive speeds; high-speed travel does not fall within the easement's original purpose as an access trail to other recreational areas. Excessive speeds and the associated increase in noise is not an improvement reasonably necessary for enjoyment of the easement, and this type of use can significantly interfere with Price's quiet use and enjoyment of his property. [42] Accordingly, on remand the superior court should establish a speed limit for use on the trail across Price's property. Price may post the speed limit if he chooses to do so. [43]
Price I also suggested that the superior court define the easement's width. [44] The superior court issued a brief order setting the width of the easement at 16 feet, [45] but the superior court's 2007 decision increased the width of the easement to 18 feet . . . [which is] sufficient to permit two snowmachines traveling in opposite directions to pass each other safely. We agree with Price that the superior court's findings concerning the width of the easement are not supported by the record. First, the superior court increased the width of the easement from 16 feet (in its 2004 order) to 18 feet (in its 2007 order) without providing any findings or explanation for doing so. Without any additional findings, the revised width is unsupported by the record. Second, and perhaps more importantly, we cannot find anything in the record to suggest that the easement was 16-feet wide during the prescriptive period; to the contrary, the testimony suggests that the 16-foot width only came about once the Snomads began grooming the trail around 1998. Given this evidence, even the 16-foot width must be reconsidered. [46] It is uncontested that an 8-foot trail permits one lane of snowmachine travel. If the easement's use has evolved to require widening the path, the superior court must make specific findings as to the reasonableness and necessity of increasing the width of the easement. Without these findings, the record does not support an easement more than 8-feet wide. [47]