Davis v. Hall
2012 MT 125
Mont.2012Background
- Davises own SE¼SEV4 of Sec. 7; Hall/Stewart own Lots 69–70 in Sec. 8; Jasickos own Lots 71–72 in Sec. 8; State owns SW¼SW¼ of Sec. 8 separating Davises from others; 60' road easement (Denton Gulch Road) runs along the boundary between Secs. 7 and 8 and terminates at the State parcel; Wolf Creek Canyon, Inc. executed a 1974 Declaration of Easements and filed Certificates of Survey (COS) 245927–246126 detailing roadways and rights of way; 2004 gate blocked the road; Davises acquired their land in 2009 and encountered the gate; trial court held an express access easement exists over Sec. 8 for Davises’ Sec. 7 property; gate obstruction injunction issued; State land lies between the Sec. 7 and Sec. 8 parcels, creating contention about reach of the easement; court held the 60' road easement is appurtenant to Davises’ land notwithstanding the intervening State parcel.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Declaration of Easements and Section 8 COS sufficiently describe an access easement for off-survey property. | Davises argue combined documents create an express easement benefiting off-survey property (Sec. 7). | Defendants contend Section 8 COS alone is insufficient to bind off-survey property. | Yes; the two documents together adequately describe an appurtenant easement. |
| Whether an express easement may be appurtenant to noncontiguous dominant land when separated by State land. | Davises assert it can be appurtenant if both tenements are clearly defined and intent so. | Defendants contend noncontiguous dominant servient relationship defeats appurtenant status. | Yes; express easement may be appurtenant to noncontiguous land if clearly defined and intent shown. |
Key Cases Cited
- Blazer v. Wall, 343 Mont. 173 (2008 MT) (easement adequately described when dominant/servient identified with reference to a plat or COS)
- Broadwater Dev., LLC v. Nelson, 352 Mont. 401 (2009 MT) (easement-by-reference and appurtenant analysis clarified)
- Yellowstone River, LLC v. Meriwether Land Fund I, LLC, 362 Mont. 273 (2011 MT) (implied easements limited; reiterates standards for express easements)
- N.W. Improvement Co. v. Lowry, 104 Mont. 289 (1937 MT) (recognizes easement appurtenant can attach despite noncontiguity)
- Jones v. Stevens, 177 N.E. 91 (1931 Mass.) (early support for appurtenant easement despite intervening land)
- Verzeano v. Carpenter, 815 P.2d 1275 (1991 Or. App.) (adopts standard: appurtenant easement to noncontiguous property if clearly defined and intent shown)