Court Opinion

ID: 9515127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:54:01.92062+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:25.251509
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 22.] I dissent because the alteration of this road by the servient landowner was contrary to the plat, self-serving, and unreasonable to the dominant landowners.
1. The majority opinion makes much of the fact that the plat “contained no specific survey information” ... “of its length, width, slope, distance, direction, grade or radius.” Nonsense. I attach a copy of the plat which shows specific survey information of its length, width, distance and direction. All the required information is present because the plat includes a scale of one inch equals one hundred feet (1" = 100'). What more is really needed?
2. Plaintiff contends that the uncontro-verted testimony at trial was that the road was physically staked, constructed and located consistent with the plat. Specifically, John Aye II, *45the person who originally platted the land, hired Bud Polley, a Lawrence County surveyor to prepare a survey of the land with the intention- of subdividing it into lots. Polley prepared a plat and recorded it. At the time he prepared the plat, Polley noted the road on the plat and then Polley and Aye staked the road. After Polley and Aye placed survey pins for the lots, Aye used his bulldozer to carve the road as it was noted on the plat.
3. The platted road extends more than half way into Lot 5, which lot was purchased by Lillehaug with full knowledge of the road’s location. Lillehaug reduced the distance the road extends onto his lot from approximately 125' to approximately 50'. He did this so that he could build his house and his garage where the platted road was located. This was totally self-serving and unreasonable.
4. In moving the platted road to make room for his house and garage, Lil-lehaug changed the grade of the [platted] road from a reasonable 13 degrees to an unreasonable 32 degrees, all to the detriment of the dominant landowners for whom the road was platted. As civil engineer Neil Stodolski testified,
[w]ell, it is very steep in the curve section than what — certainly than what is considered good road design. [The 32% grade] far exceeds anything that you are going to want to travel with for any type of vehicle. But it is also on a curve and that makes it worse because you have to slow down to traverse the curve ... again, a 32% grade is an exceedingly steep grade. County standard allows for 12%.
5.I would reverse and remand and require Lillehaug to reduce the grade to a maximum of 20 degrees by replacing the road closer to its platted location.
See the plat and Plaintiffs exhibit 14 attached hereto.
*46[[Image here]]
*47[[Image here]]