Court Opinion

ID: 9785302
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-30 21:15:09.144693+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:34:29.603676
License: Public Domain

Justice EID,
concurring.
I join the opinion of the court. I write separately, however, to note my disagreement with the dissenting opinion’s suggestion that the court’s ruling is inconsistent with Colorado law and based on principles “borrow[ed]” from elsewhere. Dissent op. at 1276.
It is well established under Colorado law that servient estate owners, such as the Lovingoods, may use their property in any way not inconsistent with the easement holder’s interest. See, e.g., Lazy Dog Ranch v. Telluray Ranch Corp., 965 P.2d 1229, 1234 (Colo.1998); Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Empire Club, 804 P.2d 175, 183 (Colo.1991) (citing eases). Thus, the servient estate owner cannot demonstrate adverse possession simply by showing that he used the property, because he is clearly entitled to do so as the owner of the property. Instead, the servient estate owner must show that his particular use of the property is clearly inconsistent and incompatible with the easement holder’s interest in order to show that the use is truly “adverse.” Maj. op. at 1270-71; § 38-41-101(1), C.R.S. (2007).
In this ease, we consider what sort of use by the servient estate owner is required to show adversity when the easement holder has not developed the easement in any way. Where, as here, an easement holder has not developed the easement, the servient estate owner may use the easement area to a far greater extent than in a case involving a developed easement. By way of example, let us suppose that Matoush had developed the easement as a driveway in order to access the alley with her vehicle. Then, let us suppose that the Lovingoods erected the structures that they did over the driveway (i.e., the fencing, the grass, and the shed). Those uses of the easement area would easily be deemed inconsistent and incompatible with Matoush’s interest in having a clear path to the alley. Here, by contrast, Ma-toush had not developed the easement, and therefore the structures that were built by the Lovingoods — all of which could be easily removed at some future point when Matoush wanted to use the easement — were not inconsistent or incompatible with Matoush’s interest. Adversity of use cannot be determined in a vacuum, but rather must be determined in comparison to the interest sought to be extinguished — in this case, an undeveloped easement.
In my view, the analysis the court employs today is simply an application of a longstanding principle of Colorado law — namely, that the servient estate owner may use his property to the fullest extent as long as that use is not inconsistent with the easement holder’s interest, and that therefore only a use that is clearly inconsistent and incompatible with that interest will be deemed “adverse” — to a situation involving an undeveloped easement. As such, it does not borrow a principle from other jurisdictions, as the dissent suggests, but rather finds instructive a number of cases from other jurisdictions that apply the same principle we have recognized to facts similar to those presented here.1 See Zab, *1276Inc. v. Berenergy Corp., 136 P.3d 252, 262 (Colo.2006) (Eid, J., specially concurring).

. See maj. op. at 1271-73 (citing, inter alia, Kolouch v. Kramer, 120 Idaho 65, 813 P.2d 876, 879-80 (1991)(applying principle that servient estate owner’s use must be clearly inconsistent with easement holder’s interest to be adverse); Vandeleigh Indus., LLC v. Storage Partners of Kirkwood, LLC, 901 A.2d 91, 105 (Del.2006) (same); Halverson v. Turner, 268 Mont. 168, 885 P.2d 1285, 1290 (1994) (same); City of Edmonds v. Williams, 54 Wash.App. 632, 774 P.2d 1241, 1243-44 (1989) (same); Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500, 504, 507 (Wyo.1994) (same); Brooks v. Geraghty, No. 288354, 2005 WL 767867, at *6 (Mass.Land Ct. Apr.6, 2005) (same)). See also Smith v. Muellner, 283 Conn. 510, 932 A.2d 382, 389-90 (2007) (concluding that temporary structures in easement area were not inconsistent *1276with easement holder's interest in undeveloped easement and thus were not adverse).