Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence
283 P.3d 728
Idaho2012Background
- Capstar seeks an easement over Blossom Mountain Road to access its parcel west of Capstar; Capstar asserts easement theories of implied by prior use, necessity, and prescription.
- Lawrences own adjacent parcels and challenge Capstar’s claimed easement over the Lawrence property, prompting a summary-judgment motion.
- District court granted Capstar summary judgment for implied easement by prior use, easement by necessity, and prescriptive easement, and rejected laches and statute-of-limitations defenses.
- Idaho Supreme Court vacated the express-easement ruling previously and remanded for trial on remaining theories; district court later denied recusal challenges.
- Record shows contested facts on: (a) whether Funk’s use of the Blossom Mountain road was apparent and continuous; (b) whether easement by necessity existed given Mellick Road access; (c) whether Capstar’s prescriptive period was correctly measured.
- The court reverses the summary-judgment ruling and remands for trial on implied-by-use, necessity, and prescriptive easement theories; affirms denial of disqualification, and laches/statu s- of-limitations defenses; orders a new judge on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether genuine issues of material fact preclude summary judgment on easement theories | Lawrences contend factual disputes未exist | Capstar maintains undisputed use/necessity | Yes; summary judgment improper; issue to trial |
| Whether district court properly denied disqualification for cause | District judge biased due to past associations | Court acted within discretion; no bias shown | Affirmed; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether laches and statute of limitations defenses were meritless | Capstar slept on rights; prejudice to Lawrences | No prejudice; rights open and continuous use | Affirmed; defenses meritless |
| Whether Lawrences are entitled to attorney’s fees on appeal | Capstar acted frivolously to prolong litigation | Pro se party not entitled to fees | Denied; no fee award to Lawrences |
Key Cases Cited
- Bob Daniels & Sons v. Weaver, 106 Idaho 535 (Idaho 1984) (elements of implied easement by prior use)
- Davis v. Peacock, 133 Idaho 637 (Idaho 1999) (reasonableness of necessity; open and continuous use)
- Hodgins v. Sales, 139 Idaho 225 (Idaho 2003) (prescriptive easement requirements)
- Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474 (Idaho 2006) (five-year prescriptive period; elements of prescription)
- Trunnell v. Ward, 86 Idaho 555 (Idaho 1964) (adversity requirement for prescription)
- Zingiber Inv., L.L.C. v. Hagerman Highway Dist., 150 Idaho 675 (Idaho 2011) (easement characterized as right in land of another)