Court Opinion

ID: 9632516
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 11:17:49.568515+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:42:10.987958
License: Public Domain

TURSI, Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The record discloses that the “Easement Declaration and Agreement” was negotiated for the purpose of defining the existing prescriptive easement so that Geyer could satisfy the requirement of a title insurance company. The other signators to the agreement were not informed of Horse Creek’s intent to subdivide the tract.
The respective properties involved were used to run cattle. These properties were fenced. Ingress and egress was controlled by locked gates. To insure that the use of the easement by prescription would remain as it had been for, at least, the last twenty years the agreement contained the following language:
“[E]ach party acknowledges the right of all other partiés to this agreement, their heirs, successors and assigns to use and maintain such private road in the same *709condition as the same presently exists as an access easement to their respective properties.” (emphasis supplied)
Horse Creek, in its answer to Wright’s complaint, admits that the purpose of the “ ‘Easement Declaration and Agreement’ was simply a reaffirmation and concession with respect to the existence thereof.” On appeal neither party claims that the agreement extended or limited the easement acquired by prescription. Thus, the determination by the trial court, and the majority here, that the written declaration created some new expansive grant is misplaced.
In making its determination as to the permitted uses of the road, the trial court relied, inter alia, on Restatement of Property § 479 (1940). In Westland Nursing Home, Inc. v. Benson, 33 Colo.App. 245, 517 P.2d 862 (1974), this court applied Restatement of Property § 479 and affirmed a trial court ruling that the conversion of a single-family residence into a three-unit apartment building was a normal evolution of the dominant estate, and that the prescriptive easement which had been acquired for purposes of egress and ingress included the altered structure. However, Wright contends that, under the facts of this case, the use of the road for access to residences is not a normal evolution of the condition of the dominant estate as it existed during the period of adverse use. I agree.
In Board of County Commissioners v. Ogburn, 38 Colo.App. 212, 554 P.2d 700 (1976), again addressing the extension of a prescriptive easement, we emphasized the basic rule as found in Restatement of Property § 477 (1940) which reads:
“The extent of an easement created by prescription is fixed by the use through which it was created.”
We then stated that: “[pjassageways by prescription, whether public or private, are confined to the extent of actual adverse usage,” and we affirmed the trial court ruling that the adverse use was limited to farmers using horsedrawn wagons and motor vehicles for coal haulage, and by hunters for access to public lands, but remanded for specific findings as to the extent of the usage in order that the usage be specifically determined.
The rule adopted by the Restatement is that the increase in the burden upon the servient estate must be reasonably foretold and must be consistent with the pattern formed through the adverse use by which the prescriptive easement was created. Restatement of Property § 478 comment b (1940); see, e.g., Hill v. Allan, 259 Cal.App.2d 470, 66 Cal.Rptr. 676 (1968); Cushman v. Davis, 80 Cal.App.3d 731, 145 Cal.Rptr. 791 (1978); Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, 98 Idaho 633, 570 P.2d 870 (1977).
The record does not disclose the dates, if any, of residential usage of the cabins, nor whether the road at issue was indeed used for access to these cabins. Additionally, the trial court’s conclusion that there had been use of recreational residences on the dominant estate during the period of adverse use is not supported by the record. ' What the record does establish is that the uses of the property during the prescriptive period were primarily for ranching, hunting, recreation, and various other purposes, but not for residential purposes. Thus, the extension as claimed by Horse Creek is not “consistent with the pattern formed by the adverse use by which the prescriptive easement was created.” Restatement of Property § 479 comment b (1940).
Therefore, regardless of the foreseeability of the subdivision of the dominant estate, the trial court erred, because subdivision for recreational residences was not a normal development of the dominant estate as established during the prescriptive period. See Cushman v. Davis, supra; Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, supra; Aztec Limited, Inc. v. Creek Side Investment Co., 100 Idaho 566, 602 P.2d 64 (1979). Restatement of Property §§ 478 and 479 comment b (1940). Furthermore, the trial court erred in not evaluating the extent to which the increased needs of the dominant estate increased the burden on the servient estate. Restatement of Property § 479 (1940).
Although I would reverse the judgment, I agree with the majority that the matter must be remanded for a description of the *710location of the road. Board of County Commissioners v. Ogburn, supra.