David W. v. Paramount Homes, LLC
253 P.3d 903
| Mont. | 2011Background
- Gibsons hold a historic easement over Prairie Drive across Developers' land; 60-foot width per 1994 survey and maintenance agreement.
- 1995 Park County dedication converted Prairie Drive to a public road, but easement rights were preserved for Peterson subdivision owners.
- Developers acquired a Peterson tract and sought to subdivide; Prairie Drive was relocated and paved with curbs in the Ridgeview project.
- District Court found the new Prairie Drive creates two permanent obstructions and effectively obliterates the historic easement but approves a corrective remedy.
- Court ordered reconfiguration to restore Gibsons' use, require re-survey/recording, and injunct future interference; City was dismissed from the suit.
- Both sides contested standing, contract-based fees, and whether annexation or settlement extinguished easement rights.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the District Court erred in enforcing historic easement | Gibsons: rights cannot be moved or obstructed; new road invalidly alters easement. | Developers: relocation needed for development; new road can be superior if reasonably necessary. | District Court’s relief to restore easement curves upheld |
| Whether Gibsons are entitled to attorney fees and costs | Gibsons prevail on key issues under contract; fees should follow prevailing party rule. | Developers: no prevailing party; fees denied. | Gibsons prevail; remand for fee/cost determination, including on appeal |
| Whether HOA had standing to sue after dissolution | Association reinstated; standing preserved and recognized by law. | Lack of standing due to dissolution; not adequately reinstated. | HOA reinstatement relation back; standing upheld |
| Whether Petersons' dedication extinguished Gibsons' easement | Public dedication does not extinguish pre-existing private easements. | Dedication may extinguish or alter private rights under some theories. | Private easement survives alongside public right |
| Whether settlement with City absolves Developers of liability | Settlement with City does not release Developers from liability for easement issues. | Settlement estops claims against Developers as tangentially released. | Settlement did not extinguish claims against Developers; remand for fees |
Key Cases Cited
- Parker v. Elder, 233 Mont. 75, 758 P.2d 292 (1988) (servient owner cannot relocate easement without consent)
- Tungsten Holdings, Inc. v. Kimberlin, 2000 MT 24, 298 Mont. 176, 994 P.2d 1114 (2000) (no unilateral relocation of easement by servient estate)
- McPherson v. Monegan, 120 Mont. 454, 187 P.2d 542 (1947) (private and public easements can coexist; public changes do not extinguish private rights)
- Glenn v. Grosfield, 274 Mont. 192, 906 P.2d 201 (1995) (prescriptive easements cannot be relocated; mutual written relocation required)
- Leisz v. Avista Corp., 2007 MT 347, 340 Mont. 294, 174 P.3d 481 (2007) (clear rule against unilateral relocation of established easements)