Bratton v. Scott, 150 Idaho 530

Fords conveyed Lot 32 to Brattons with a three‑foot easement along the Lot 40 boundary for the irrigation ditch and ingress/egress; the warranty deed reflects only the three‑foot easement.
Over time, the ditch was maintained across Lot 40; Brattons used ≥12 feet for maintenance, including burning weeds and adding pipes, despite the deed showing 3 feet.
Scott later acquired Lot 40 (subject to recorded easements); tension arose over access/maintenance of the ditch; Scott plowed part of the ditch in 2006 and later removed concrete piping.
Brattons sued in 2007 for declaratory/injunctive relief and damages; courts allowed partial summary judgment for express easement but not for implied 12‑foot easement; the trial proceeded in three phases.
Jury found negligence and lack of written permission before altering the ditch, but damages were later struck by JNOV; district court awarded Scotts fees and costs as prevailing party.
On appeal, court affirms JNOV on damages, reverses denial of a new trial, remands for new damages trial; expressly leaves remand scope to focus on restoration costs and damages from interference.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was JNOV proper to strike the damage awards?	Brattons claim damages were supported by evidence and should stand.	No competent evidence supported the damage awards; JNOV correct.	JNOV proper; damages awards not supported.
Was the denial of a new trial warranted?	Errors of law and improper evidence rulings harmed Brattons; new trial warranted.	No abuse of discretion; trial proper as conducted.	New trial warranted due to legal errors and exclusion of relevant damage evidence.
Did the court misapply I.C. §§ 42-1204 and 42-1207 and admit improper evidence on implied easement?	Evidence on implied easement and §42-1207 damages should have been admitted.	Court properly limited evidence and applied the statutes.	Court misapplied law; broader damages evidence under §42-1207 permissible; remand needed.
Were attorney fees appropriate at district court or on appeal?	Fees may be recoverable if prevailing party; Brattons not clearly prevailing.	Fees premature pending remand; appellate fees not warranted.	Fees not awarded on appeal; remand may address fee allocation.

Mussell v. Mussell, 139 Idaho 28 (2003) (dominant‑estate damages to restore ditch to transmitting water; cost evidence required)
Moon v. Moon, 72 Idaho 46 (1957) (damages for injuries from changes to ditch including maintenance and rotation of use)
Pulley v. Moon, 125 Idaho 237 (1993) (recognizes injuries beyond impediment to flow; maintenance burden and rotation of use compensable)
Horner v. Sani-Top, Inc., 143 Idaho 230 (2006) (damages must be supported by evidence; speculative awards improper)
Aguirre v. Hamlin, 80 Idaho 176 (1958) (restoration of ditch to prior capabilities may be required even when damaged)
Thomas v. Madsen, 142 Idaho 635 (2006) (easement issues and use considerations in Idaho)