403 P.3d 632
Idaho2017Background
- Boise Hollow (successor to Vancroft) owns a 63-acre parcel (Lot 4); Boise City owns adjacent Quail Hollow Golf Course.
- In 1991 Vancroft, Tee, Ltd. (leaseholder of the golf course), and Sanderson executed a "Permanent Easement Agreement" purporting to grant a 40-foot perpetual access and utility easement across the golf course to benefit Lot 4.
- At the time the agreement was signed, Vancroft owned both the servient (golf course) and dominant (Lot 4) parcels; Tee, Ltd. held only a leasehold interest in the golf course.
- Boise Hollow sued Boise City seeking declaratory relief/quiet title that the recorded agreement created a permanent easement and that the easement could be expanded for public dedication.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Boise City, concluding (1) a lessee cannot grant a greater interest than its leasehold and (2) a landowner cannot create an easement over its own land to benefit the same land; any access rights conveyed by the lessor terminated when the lease ended. Boise Hollow appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Permanent Easement Agreement created a permanent easement across the golf course | The Agreement, recorded and labeled "perpetual," created an appurtenant easement benefitting Lot 4 | The Agreement cannot create a permanent easement because the purported grantor (Tee, Ltd.) held only a leasehold and could not convey a greater interest | Court held no permanent easement was created; a lessee cannot grant an interest beyond its leasehold, so any grant terminated with the leasehold |
| Whether a landowner (Vancroft) may create an easement across its own property to benefit adjacent land it also owned at the time | Boise Hollow argued the recorded plat/dedication and agreement support easement rights (argued later at oral argument) | Boise City argued a landowner cannot burden its own property to create an easement appurtenant when it owns both dominant and servient estates in fee at the time of grant | Court found it unnecessary to decide after ruling on lessee-grant principle but noted principle that one cannot create an easement across one’s own property to benefit the same estate |
| Whether Leichtfuss supports an exception allowing such an easement to survive expiry of the lease | Boise Hollow relied on Leichtfuss to argue the easement should persist despite less-than-fee dominant or servient estates | Boise City argued Leichtfuss does not create an exception to the rule that a creator cannot convey a greater interest than it holds | Court rejected Boise Hollow’s reliance on Leichtfuss and declined to create an exception; affirmed standard rule |
| Whether new arguments (plat dedication, estoppel) raised on appeal should be considered | Boise Hollow raised the recorded plat/dedication and estoppel at appeal/argument | Boise City objected that these issues were not raised below | Court refused to consider issues raised for the first time on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomson v. Lewiston, 137 Idaho 473, 58 P.3d 488 (procedural standard for summary judgment)
- Krasselt v. Koester, 99 Idaho 124, 578 P.2d 240 (lessee holds only a limited possessory interest)
- Wing v. Martin, 107 Idaho 267, 688 P.2d 1172 (lessee/landlord interests; reversionary interest of landlord)
- Leichtfuss v. Dabney, 122 P.3d 1220 (Mont. 2005) (discussed by plaintiff; court declined to apply as an exception)
- Skinner v. U.S. Bank Home Mortg., 159 Idaho 642, 365 P.3d 398 (issues not raised below will not be considered on appeal)