Court Opinion

ID: 9615067
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:30:53.314463+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:21:11.672550
License: Public Domain

URBIGKIT, Chief Justice,
concurring with opinion, with whom GOLDEN, Justice, joins.
I concur in the decision and the court’s opinion. I write further only to make clear, with reversal of the summary judgment, that no intimation should follow for any retrial proceeding or litigation that may hereafter be instituted that the easement at issue is actually sixty foot in width.
It would first be concluded that the easement was created by the agreement of June 10, 1968 and not altered in size or location by the easement agreement of September 14, 1986. The latter document contained no conveyancing or granting language demonstrating an intent to extend the size of any easement that was then in existence.
This is a simple case with relatively direct language. The configuration and location of the prospective roadway and anticipated easement is found in the 1968 document and its exhibits G & H and states:
3. EASEMENT. Erkins and Bert hereby grant, assign and set over to We-isbrod, Cameron and White to use as a means of ingress and egress to and from that property owned by Weisbrod, Cameron and White as well as to their guests and invitees said road to be a private road for the benefit of the Weisbrod, Cameron and White property, the following described property, to-wit:
That property described on EXHIBITS G and H annexed hereto.
In exhibits G and H to that agreement, we find the description as follows:
Robert Erkins Part
To-wit:—
A strip of land 20 feet in width meandering with various courses and distances but within at all times the west 60 feet of the following described tract: [metes and bounds description of entire parcel].
EXHIBIT G
A.W. Erkins Part
To-wit:—
A strip of land 20 feet in width meandering with various courses and distances but within at all times the west 60 feet of the following described lands: [metes and bounds description of entire parcel].
*1272EXHIBIT H
I find no question about what was provided by this explicit description in the document. There was a right to build a road within the west sixty feet and, when built and where built, the road included a twenty foot easement. This is the plain meaning of clear language and, in my persuasion, neither requires nor permits further interpretation. Knadler v. Adams, 661 P.2d 1052 (Wyo.1983); Dawson v. Meike, 508 P.2d 15 (Wyo.1973).
In this regard, I concur with the trial court in its first discussion paragraph of the Order Concerning Motions for Summary Judgment and Summary Judgment in recognition of the twenty foot wide easement. However, as the parties argue in brief, the second paragraph and language thereafter can be considered to provide an erroneous content to apparently increase the easement width to sixty feet. The agreement with the specific conveyancing language providing for the easement clearly defines an easement where the road is now located within the west sixty feet of the property to be twenty feet in width. The easement agreement speaks for itself. Revelle v. Schultz, 759 P.2d 1255 (Wyo.1988). The written language used leads unerringly to the conclusion as it states that the easement is twenty feet and should not then be extended by implication to be something different. Kincheloe v. Milatzo, 678 P.2d 855 (Wyo.1984).
In addressing an issue argued by the litigants and considered by the trial court, I provide this analysis to avoid future misconstruction of the majority’s decision.