Caldwell v. COMETTO, 151 Idaho 34

Access road runs eight miles from a county highway, crosses National Forest, then crosses Cometto property, Caldwell parcels, to St. Angelo and Seiler parcels.
In 1997 the road was realigned to bypass buildings, adding sharp turns and narrowing to 11–12 feet.
In 2000 Appellants signed an easement agreement with the Comettos granting an easement over the newly constructed road, allegedly within West, North, and East 30 feet of the Cometto property.
Appellants sought to quiet title to a 30-foot easement, upgrade the road, and block obstacles; trial focused on interpreting the easement scope.
Trial court issued Amended Partial Judgment: primary easement over the travelway, 3-foot-wide secondary easement along edges up to 30 feet total, with restrictions on removing mature trees in the secondary easement.
Bifurcated proceedings led to a later ruling that there was no prevailing party and denied cross-motions for costs and attorney fees.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there is substantial evidence to remove mature trees within the secondary easement.	Caldwell contends trees impede maintenance and snow storage, warranting removal.	Cometto argues removal would burden servient estate and is not supported by evidence.	Substantial evidence supports keeping trees; removal would unduly burden Comettos.
Whether the district court properly denied attorney fees below.	Caldwell argues no prevailing party, so fees should not be denied.	Cometto argues no party prevailed entirely; fees may be awarded as discretion dictates.	No abuse of discretion; neither side prevailed; fees denied.
Whether either party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.	Easement provides fees to prevailing party on appeal; Caldwell seeks fees if successful on appeal.	Neither party prevailed on appeal; no fees should be awarded.	Neither party is entitled to attorney fees on appeal.

Kolouch v. Kramer, 120 Idaho 65, 813 P.2d 876 (1991) (easement interpretation; context and surrounding circumstances used to infer intent)
Walker v. Boozer, 140 Idaho 451, 95 P.3d 69 (2004) (secondary easements; incidental repairs must burden servient estate as little as possible)
Abbott v. Nampa Sch. Dist. No. 131, 119 Idaho 544, 808 P.2d 1289 (1991) (limits on easement use; burden on servient estate considered)
Drew v. Sorensen, 133 Idaho 534, 989 P.2d 276 (1999) (secondary easements to repair/maintain; cannot enlarge burden)
Conley v. Whittlesey, 133 Idaho 265, 985 P.2d 1127 (1999) (secondary easements for repair/maintenance recognized; limit burden)
Simonson v. Moon, 72 Idaho 39, 237 P.2d 93 (1951) (ditch rights; purpose of maintenance rights)
Statewide Constr., Inc. v. Pietri, 150 Idaho 423, 247 P.3d 650 (2011) (I.C. § 55-313; relocation rights must not injure travel)