Chicoine v. Davis
2017 SD 62
| S.D. | 2017Background
- Noel and Teresa Chicoine own Lot 4 in Clondyke (M.S. 1794) and seek a declared access easement across Mineral Survey 1758 (M.S. 1758) to their property.
- A deteriorating dirt road enters M.S. 1758 on the Lillah Fraction lode and continues south across each lode; the Chicoines claim a right-of-way over that road.
- Multiple deeds conveying the separate lodes of M.S. 1758 contained repetitive language stating the land was “subject to a statutory easement for a 66’ road right of way along section line bounding or within the land herein described” or that "easements for road right-of-way are reserved across each lode of M.S. 1758 and will be 66’ wide. (Not road surface.)"
- The circuit court found no prescriptive easement and held the road is private; the Chicoines appealed only the court’s conclusion that the road is not public by grant.
- No governmental entity was joined to the action, and the Chicoines did not argue the road had been dedicated and accepted by a public authority.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether deed language creates a public easement (dedication) across M.S. 1758 | Chicoines: the "statutory easement" language in multiple deeds refers to a public 66' section-line road crossing each lode, so the road is public | Davises: deeds reference statutory section-line easements only; no evidence of dedication or governmental acceptance and road is not along a section line | Court: Affirmed — deed language unambiguously refers to SDCL section-line statutory easements; Chicoines failed to show a public easement by grant or acceptance |
| Whether statutory public right-of-way under SDCL chapter 31-18 applies to the existing road | Chicoines: the statutory easement language demonstrates a public section-line highway exists across the lodes | Davises: the road is not on a section line, and there is no proof of relocation or statutory applicability; no government joined/acceptance shown | Court: The road is not shown to be a section-line highway or relocated section-line highway; plaintiffs did not meet burden to establish public statutory easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Swaby v. N. Hills Reg'l R.R. Auth., 769 N.W.2d 798 (S.D. 2009) (deed construction is a question of law; examine instrument as a whole)
- Tripp v. F & K Assam Family, LLC, 755 N.W.2d 106 (S.D. 2008) (construe deed language in context of entire instrument)
- Knight v. Madison, 634 N.W.2d 540 (S.D. 2001) (public easement requires clear owner dedication and governmental acceptance)
- J.K. Dean, Inc. v. KSD, Inc., 709 N.W.2d 22 (S.D. 2005) (governmental entity that would maintain a dedicated road is an indispensable party to a suit declaring a road public)
- Busselman v. Egge, 864 N.W.2d 786 (S.D. 2015) (declaring a road dedicated to the public has the effect of compelling governmental maintenance and thus requires joinder)