791 N.W.2d 180
S.D.2010Background
- DRD Enterprises seeks a declaratory judgment to burden Flickemas and PSC with a Blanket Easement across their Lots 5 and 6, based on a grant from Dakota Resorts.
- The Blanket Easement describes the dominant tenement as Emery Nos. 4 and 5 but omits a description of the servient tenement, stating only 'grantor’s land'.
- The Blanket Easement was recorded in 2000 and indexed against Emery Nos. 4 and 5, but not against any servient property.
- Dakota Resorts sold Emery Nos. 4 and 5 around 2004–2005; Flickemas acquired Lot 5 and PSC acquired Lot 6 in 2006, subsequent to the Blanket Easement.
- Aventure Estates later acquired the servient lands (Lot 5/6 area) but the Blanket Easement was not referenced in their deeds or title commitments.
- The title commitments for Flickemas and PSC at closing did not show the Blanket Easement, and neither purchaser discovered the easement through their own inspections.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the servient-tenement description sufficient? | DRD argued the Blanket Easement suffices by referencing grantor’s land and public records. | Flickemas and PSC contend the description is too vague to identify the servient tenement. | Descriptive language 'grantor’s land' is insufficient; easement invalid against Lot 5 and Lot 6. |
| Did knowledge or notice defeat the good-faith-purchaser defense? | DRD asserts notice or constructive notice through the easement or title records burdened purchasers. | Flickemas and PSC had no actual or constructive notice in their chain of title. | No burden on Flickemas or PSC due to insufficient description and lack of notice. |
| May the appellate court review the prior order on the sufficiency question? | DRD argues the initial order determining sufficiency is reviewable on appeal as it affects the final judgment. | Flickemas and PSC rely on the final judgment and the merits, not the earlier order. | The initial order is reviewable when it affects the merits of the challenged summary judgment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Ford, 24 S.D. 644 (South Dakota, 1910) (description must furnish means of identification and point to certainty)
- Schlecht v. Hinrich, 50 S.D. 360 (South Dakota, 1926) (descriptions must enable third parties to identify property)
- Allen v. Duvall, 311 N.C. 245 (North Carolina, 1984) (easement description must be certain or reducible to certainty)
- Vrabel v. Donahoe Creek Watershed Auth., 545 S.W.2d 53 (Texas Civ. App., 1977) (description must identify servient land with certainty)
- Berg v. Ting, 125 Wash.2d 544 (Washington, 1995) (statutory-frad-like requirement for easement descriptions)
- Cummings v. Dosam, Inc., 273 N.C. 28 (North Carolina, 1968) (description must identify land or point to evidence to identify it)