Andrew Kirk v. Ann B. Wescott, 382 P.3d 342

Background

In 2000 Odmark sold Lot 8 to Wescott and conveyed with it a "temporary 25 foot wide Easement of Access" across the southeast corner of adjoining Lot 7; the deed included conditions for when that easement would come into effect and when it would terminate.
The deed stated the easement would become "in effect" only upon the Lot 8 owner’s receipt of a written denial from the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for access across USFS lands; it also contained three termination provisions (quitclaim within 30 days if "permanent access" provided by County/USFS; remain "in effect" only until County grants access from Jones Lane; quitclaim within one year or upon completion of the driveway, whichever occurs first).
After Odmark conveyed Lot 8, USFS ultimately granted Wescott an easement (with an expiration date), Wescott used the forest road and never used the deeded Lot 7 access; Blaine County vacated Jones Lane in 2007.
The Kirks purchased Lot 7 in 2010, discovered the deeded easement, and filed this quiet-title action in 2012 seeking termination of the Easement of Access.
The district court granted partial summary judgment to Wescott (concluding the easement attached and was not terminated), denied the Kirks’ motions to amend to add evidence about a different USFS easement, and after a bench trial dismissed the Kirks’ complaint; the Idaho Supreme Court reversed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Kirks)	Defendant's Argument (Wescott)	Held
Whether the deeded Easement of Access was void for lack of adequate legal description	Easement description insufficient; deed invalid	Court record lacked prior challenge; no ruling below	Not considered on appeal (issue not raised below)
Whether the Easement of Access was triggered/terminated under its terms (interpretation on summary judgment)	Easement ambiguous; would not be in effect without a written USFS denial and in any event terminated within one year	Easement valid; termination conditions not met; USFS easement not "permanent" so no quitclaim required	Reversed district court: deed unambiguous; created a temporary easement that terminated one year after delivery of the deed (so it expired long ago)
Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying the Kirks’ motions to amend (to add evidence about the Woodcocks’ USFS easement)	Newly produced documents showed the Woodcocks’ USFS easement reflected the drafters’ intent and could trigger termination	Motion untimely; documents are parol evidence and irrelevant because Woodcocks’ easement did not benefit Lot 8 or was not permanent	Court did not address on appeal (no need after holding termination occurred)
Whether Wescott was entitled to attorney fees under Idaho Code § 12-121 (district court and on appeal)	N/A (Kirks opposing fees)	Fees appropriate for prevailing party	Denied: because Supreme Court reversed district judgment, Wescott is not the prevailing party and is not entitled to fees on remand or on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Idaho Dev., LLC v. Teton View Golf Estates, LLC, 152 Idaho 401, 272 P.3d 373 (standard for summary judgment)
Mortensen v. Stewart Title Guar. Co., 149 Idaho 437, 235 P.3d 387 (summary judgment standards)
Hoch v. Vance, 155 Idaho 636, 315 P.3d 824 (ambiguity in deed is a question of fact; interpret deed as whole)
Machado v. Ryan, 153 Idaho 212, 280 P.3d 715 (seek and give effect to parties’ intent in deed construction)
Armand v. Opportunity Mgmt. Co., 155 Idaho 592, 315 P.3d 245 (requirements for creating an express easement)
Barmore v. Perrone, 145 Idaho 340, 179 P.3d 303 (deed is effective upon delivery)
Marek v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 50, 278 P.3d 920 (trier of fact determines intent when instrument ambiguous)