381 P.3d 1041
Or. Ct. App.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Dayton) own the parcel north of defendants (Jordan / Sun Buggy); a single east–west road runs along their boundary and provides the only direct access from either parcel to the Oregon Dunes.
- Both parcels were once part of a larger Pacific Coast Recreation parcel; in 1999 and later partitions created the parcels at issue; defendants’ predecessor acquired Tax Lot 606 (defendants’ parcel) in 2004 while Pacific Coast still owned the disputed road and the land to the north.
- Plaintiffs sued to quiet title and enjoin defendants’ use of the disputed road; defendants asserted two counterclaims for an easement: one “implied from reference to the plat” and another “implied from prior use.”
- The trial court granted summary judgment to defendants on the plat-based easement (addressed in Dayton I) and later, after a bench trial on remaining claims, granted plaintiffs’ ORCP 54 B(2) motion and dismissed defendants’ second counterclaim (easement implied from prior use) for lack of evidence of prior use.
- Defendants did not present evidence specifically about how their parcel had been used prior to the 2004 conveyance, but they presented other evidence (e.g., the road provided the only direct access to another easement benefitting their parcel; sale conditions limiting ATV rentals for a limited time; adjacent property access considerations).
- The Court of Appeals vacated the limited judgment dismissing the prior-use counterclaim, holding the trial court erred by treating prior use as an essential, dispositive element rather than one factor among many.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proof of prior use is an essential element of an implied-easement claim | Dayton: defendants must prove prior use of the easement or that defendants’ parcel was used in a way that required the easement; absence of such evidence is fatal | Jordan: prior use is a relevant Cheney factor but not essential; other evidence can support an implied easement | Court: Prior use is an important factor but not dispositive; trial court erred by requiring proof of prior use and dismissing the claim |
| Proper standard under ORCP 54 B(2) for dismissal after plaintiffs’ motion at close of evidence | Dayton: trial court could evaluate merits under clear-and-convincing standard at close of all evidence | Jordan: at least a prima facie showing is required to avoid dismissal; court must consider all evidence presented | Court: Unclear which standard applied, but either way court erred because it gave controlling effect to absence of prior-use evidence |
| Whether defendants were limited to the specific “prior use” theory pleaded | Dayton: defendants chose that theory and must prove it | Jordan: pleadings were tried by consent and court should consider all evidence relevant to implied easement, not just narrow pleaded theory | Court: Trial proceeded on the claim and evidence; court could consider all evidence regardless of how pleaded; plaintiffs’ argument rejected |
| Whether dismissal should be reviewed de novo on record | Dayton: implicit that trial court weighed evidence and was unpersuaded; appellate de novo review requested by defendants | Jordan: defendants asked for de novo review | Court: declined de novo review; vacated and remanded because of legal error in treating prior use as essential |
Key Cases Cited
- Dayton v. Jordan, 279 Or. App. 737 (court’s prior opinion in same litigation) (discusses implied easement theories and facts)
- Cheney v. Mueller, 259 Or. 108 (Sup. Ct. 1970) (identifies eight factors relevant to implied easement analysis)
- Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton, 250 Or. App. 413 (implied easement requires clear and convincing evidence; Cheney factors are variables)
- Manusos v. Skeels, 263 Or. App. 721 (easement arises when land is divided by conveyance)
- Garrett v. Mueller, 144 Or. App. 330 (prior use can strongly support inference of intent to create easement)
- Bloomfield v. Weakland, 193 Or. App. 784 (implied easement arises from circumstances at time of severance)
- Venture Properties, Inc. v. Parker, 223 Or. App. 321 (explains ORCP 54 B(2) directed-verdict standard)
- Case v. Burton, 250 Or. App. 14 (appellate review of trial court legal conclusions)
- Fischer v. Walker, 246 Or. App. 589 (pleading limits at summary judgment; distinguished on facts)