Brent Regan v. Jeff Owen, 413 P.3d 759

The Owens purchased the "Orphan Parcel" from Kootenai County at a tax sale and received a tax deed. A neighboring landowner, the Regans, claimed a prescriptive easement to drive across the parcel.
The Regans sued to reform the tax deed to include an express easement and to establish a prescriptive easement; the district court initially granted summary judgment for the Regans and reformed the deed.
This Court in Regan I reversed the reformation ruling, holding insufficient evidence to establish a prescriptive easement and remanded for further proceedings; Regan I included a discussion (dicta, per the lead) about tax deeds and "encumbrances."
On remand the Owens moved for summary judgment, arguing the tax deed extinguished any prescriptive easement under Idaho Code § 63-1009; the district court granted that motion.
After the Regans appealed, the Idaho Legislature amended § 63-1009 (2016) and expressly rejected the interpretation that tax deeds extinguish private access easements; the Court here vacated the district court judgment and remanded, holding the district court erred in applying § 63-1009 to extinguish the Regans' prescriptive easement.
The Court concluded the term "encumbrance" in the tax-deed statute should be read narrowly to mean financial interests (mortgages, liens, judgments, assessments), not easements, and therefore the district court erred to the extent it found extinguishment by the tax deed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Regan I's discussion of "encumbrance" is binding law of the case	Regan: Regan I supports that easements may be treated as encumbrances	Owens: District court should follow Regan I guidance treating easements as extinguished	Court: Regan I's discussion was dicta and not binding on remand
Whether issuance of a tax deed under I.C. § 63-1009 extinguishes a prescriptive easement	Regan: Easements are not financial encumbrances and are not extinguished by tax deed	Owens: Tax deed conveys title "free of all encumbrances," extinguishing easement	Court: Section 63-1009 does not extinguish prescriptive easements; "encumbrance" limited to financial interests
Proper meaning of "encumbrance" in § 63-1009	Regan: Use contemporaneous statutory/technical meaning (financial liens, taxes, assessments)	Owens: Use broader common-law definitions (including easements) from Hunt	Court: Adopt narrow construction—financial interests—based on statutory context, history, and policy
Whether district court properly granted summary judgment to Owens on that basis	Regan: Genuine issues remain about prescriptive easement; statute not a bar	Owens: No easement survives tax deed as matter of law	Court: District court erred to grant summary judgment on extinguishment ground; vacated and remanded

Regan v. Owen, 157 Idaho 758, 339 P.3d 1162 (Idaho 2014) (prior appeal reversing deed reformation and discussing encumbrance)
Hunt v. Bremer, 47 Idaho 490, 276 P. 964 (Idaho 1929) (definition of "encumbrance" used in prior discussion)
Engel v. Catucci, 197 F.2d 597 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (easements are distinct property interests and ordinarily survive tax-sales)
Suitts v. First Security Bank of Idaho, 110 Idaho 15, 713 P.2d 1374 (Idaho 1985) (articulating law-of-the-case doctrine)
Urrutia v. Blaine County, 134 Idaho 353, 2 P.3d 738 (Idaho 2000) (appellate guidance on remand may be provided)
Hoffer v. Callister, 137 Idaho 291, 47 P.3d 1261 (Idaho 2002) (statutory list of "encumbrances" is inclusive, not exclusive)