Bolduc v. Thompson, 245 P.3d 131

Plaintiffs hold an easement over the easement road crossing the northern portion of defendant's property for ingress/egress to their parcel.
Defendant proposed to replace an existing gate and to build a fence along the shared boundary, potentially enclosing plaintiffs.
The joint settlement with a neighbor created a new 20-foot-wide access road via a public alley and a triangle easement to ease turns onto the easement road.
Plaintiffs and tenants objected to gate/fence plans; defendant installed attempts to secure the gate but not consistently locked it.
Trial court allowed gate replacement but imposed conditions: gate location, a 10-yard turn requirement, an electric gate with intercom, and a southern-only easement fence.
On de novo review, the appellate court reversed in part and remanded for a modified judgment addressing gate placement, fence location, and maintenance costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Gate placement and access interference	Replacement gate must not impede easement purpose or truck turns.	Gate location should be as negotiated; triangle easement governs access; no substantial interference.	Court erred; allow gate at existing location without 10-yard-turn restriction
Western boundary fencing prerequisite	Fence location should advance access and security as needed.	Partial fencing is not tied to gate replacement; western boundary fencing unnecessary as a precondition.	Trial court erred; no need to fence western boundary before replacing the gate
Northern boundary fence location	Fence along shared boundary should be at boundary where it abuts easement road.	Fence location along shared boundary may be north of easement road; restrictions are unwarranted.	Fence along the northern boundary may be constructed; not limited to southern easement boundary
Cost allocation for maintenance	Maintenance costs should not be borne wholly by defendant.	Costs should be allocated in proportion to use; shared maintenance is appropriate only if justified.	Maintenance cost for the electronic gate and intercom should be shared equally
Second gate at boundary	Second gate at the boundary should be addressed	Issue not clearly decided below; requires further record	Remanded for further proceedings to determine whether a second gate may be constructed

Wagner v. O'Callaghan, 104 Or. App. 284 (1990) (servient owner must not substantially interfere with easement use)
Clark v. Kuhn, 171 Or. App. 29 (2000) (easement owner’s use limited to reasonably necessary uses; dominion with constraint)
Craft v. Weakland, 174 Or. App. 185 (2001) (burden on dominant owner to show substantial interference with easement use)
D'Abbracci v. Shaw-Bastian, 201 Or. App. 108 (2005) (whether servient use substantially interferes is a question of fact; de novo review)