Court Opinion

ID: 9511526
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:05:34.351946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:03.603033
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE COTTER
concurs.
¶24 I concur in the result reached by the Court, but I disagree with its reasoning in arriving at the outcome. Although virtually all of the Amerigas encroachments are located within the abandoned roadway, the deed Slauson prepared for Edwards’ signature did not encompass this portion of the property. Opinion, ¶ 6. This means that Edwards-and not Slauson-still owns the property upon which the encroachments are situated. This being so, Slauson has no legal standing to enforce any property rights against or collect any damages from Bertelsen. I would affirm the District Court’s ruling in favor of Bertelsen on this basis, and I would not reach the prescriptive easement question.