Court Opinion

ID: 9626704
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:21:57.459992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:11:13.572124
License: Public Domain

BOYLE, Justice,
dissenting.
I join the dissent of the Chief Justice and because the question of enlargement of an easement is a question of fact, I respectfully register my own separate dissent.
In my view, the controlling issue in this case involves the appropriate standard of review that this Court should apply. Our recent cases clearly hold that the question of enlargement of an easement is one of fact to be determined by the trier of fact. In a unanimous opinion, we recently held in Kolouch v. Kramer, 120 Idaho 65, 813 P.2d 876 (1991), that
[t]he question of whether a particular use of an easement is reasonable and commensurate with the intention of the parties when the easement was granted is generally a question of fact for the trial court and its findings will not be disturbed if supported by substantial and competent evidence.
Kolouch, 120 Idaho at 69, 813 P.2d at 880 (citations omitted.)
Because the findings in Kolouch were supported by substantial evidence, we affirmed the trial court’s decision that the intention of the original parties to an easement contemplated that a road would be built to accommodate a commercial development. Id.
Similarly, in Abbott v. Nampa School District, 119 Idaho 544, 808 P.2d 1289 (1991), another case without dissent and directly on point with this instant action, we set forth our appellate function in easement cases when the question of enlargement is presented. We stated:
In our review of a trial court decision the respective roles assigned to the courts must be kept in mind. At the trial court level the trier of fact, in this case the district court judge, is the arbiter of conflicting evidence. It is the province of the district judge as the trier of fact to weigh the conflicting evidence and testimony and to judge the credibility of witnesses. In view of this role, the trial court’s findings of fact will be liberally construed in favor of the judgment entered____
Our review of the record satisfies us that the findings of the trial court are based on substantial, competent evidence and will not be disturbed on appeal. The trial court expressly found that the school district’s use of the easement did not constitute an enlargement of the use or an unreasonable increase in the burden of the easement on the servient estate. Our review of the record does not demonstrate that the findings made by the trial court are clearly erroneous and accordingly will not be set aside on appeal.
Abbott, 119 Idaho at 547-48, 808 P.2d at 1292-93 (citations omitted.)
Thus, there should be no debate concerning whether the issue of enlargement of an easement is one of fact and that we should apply the clearly erroneous standard of review. I acknowledge that the cases cited by the majority appear to indicate that the question of enlargement is one of law. See Aztec Ltd., Inc. v. Creekside Investment Co., 100 Idaho 566, 602 P.2d 64 (1979); *993Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, 98 Idaho 633, 570 P.2d 870 (1977). However, the standard enunciated in those opinions, borrowing a standard from the California Court of Appeals in Gaither v. Gaither, 165 Cal.App.2d 782, 332 P.2d 436 (1958), has not been subsequently followed. To the extent Aztec and Gibbens are inconsistent with the standard we have announced in Kolouch v. Kramer and Abbott v. Nampa School District, they have been overruled sub silentio.
Applying the clearly erroneous standard of review to the factual determination of the district court in this case, I conclude that the court’s determination “that the change in use in this case was of a degree reasonably foreseeable by the parties at the time it was established” is supported by substantial evidence in the record and is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, I would affirm the district court’s judgment.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.