381 P.3d 1031
Coos Cty. Cir. Ct., O.R.2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Daytons) and defendants (Jordan & Sun Buggy) operate adjacent ATV rental businesses; a disputed east–west road lies on the plaintiffs’ parcel and forms the northern border of defendants’ parcel and provides the only direct dunes access.
- Both parcels and the road were formerly part of a larger Pacific Coast Recreation parcel; Pacific Coast obtained a separate 1990 easement over neighboring Coos Bay Lumber land that connected to the disputed road.
- Pacific Coast partitioned in 1999 creating TL 606 (now defendants’ parcel); the 1999 plat depicted the road north of TL 606 but did not grant an easement to TL 606. The deed conveying TL 606 in 2004 referenced that 1999 plat.
- In 2005 Pacific Coast later created TL 600 (now plaintiffs’ parcel) and a plat that depicted the road and expressly purported to grant future owners of the new parcels an easement over the road, but no formal deeded easement was recorded for the parcels at issue.
- Plaintiffs sued to quiet title and enjoin defendants’ use of the road; defendants counterclaimed for declaratory relief asserting an easement created (1) by implication from reference to the 1999 plat and (2) by prior use (the latter was litigated separately).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for defendants on the first counterclaim, concluding that reference to the 1999 plat (which depicted the road) in the 2004 deed created an implied easement appurtenant to TL 606; plaintiffs appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a deed referencing a plat that depicts a road creates an implied easement appurtenant to the grantee as a matter of law | The mere depiction and plat-reference are insufficient; court must apply Cheney factors (intent inquiry) and factual issues preclude summary judgment | A plat reference alone implies an easement in streets/parks depicted on the plat; precedent (Carter, Menstell, etc.) supports a categorical rule | Reversed: depiction + plat-reference do not automatically create an implied easement; trial court misapplied the law and failed to weigh the Cheney factors and other evidence of intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v. City of Portland, 4 Or 339 (recognizing that plats and sales by reference can evidence dedication to public use)
- Kuck v. Wakefield, 58 Or 549 (discussing plat designations as evidence of intent to dedicate streets/alike)
- Menstell v. Johnson, 125 Or 150 (extending plat/dedication analysis to private servitudes; read deed and plat together to assess intent)
- Cheney v. Mueller, 259 Or 108 (articulating multi-factor test for easements implied from conveyance)
- Bloomfield v. Weakland, 224 Or App 433 (explaining that plat-reference easement claims are fact-specific and require weighing of evidence)
- Eagles Five, LLC v. Lawton, 250 Or App 413 (summarizing implied-easement law and evidentiary standard)
- Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or 201 (requiring clear and convincing evidence to establish implied easement)
- Bloomfield v. Weakland, 193 Or App 784 (earlier opinion stressing factual nature of implied-easement claims)