Drd v. Aventure Estates
2010 S.D. 88
S.D.2010Background
- Dakota Resorts granted a Blanket Easement labeled for ingress/egress across its land benefiting Emery Nos. 4 and 5, but the servient tenement description was only 'grantor's land' with no location.
- The Blanket Easement was recorded in 2000 against Emery Nos. 4 and 5; it was not indexed against any servient tenement due to lack of description.
- Dominant tenement ownership transferred: Emery Nos. 4 and 5 to O’Neill family, then Emery No. 5 to Aventure Estates and Emery No. 4 to DRD; later transfers continued with lots 5 and 6 in Aventure subdivision.
- Flickemas (Lot 5) and PSC (Lot 6) purchased their parcels with title commitments that initially removed the Blanket Easement as a special exception and without noting it in final policies or deeds.
- DRD filed a declaratory action asserting the Blanket Easement burdened Flickemas’ Lot 5 and PSC’s Lot 6; the circuit court initially held the easement described the servient tenement sufficiently, then later held otherwise on summary judgment.
- The supreme court affirmed, concluding the Blanket Easement’s description was insufficient to identify the servient tenement and thus could not burden Flickemas’ Lot 5 or PSC’s Lot 6.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Blanket Easement sufficiently describes the servient tenement | DRD contends the grantor’s land description suffices through public records. | Flickemas/PSC argue the description is void for failure to locate the servient land. | Insufficient description; not capable of identification. |
| Whether good faith purchasers without notice prevail despite constructively notified easement | DRD asserts notice through recording and related records burdens defendants. | Flickemas/PSC assert no notice in their chain of title and reliance on exclusions in title policies. | DRD did not establish burden on Flickemas/PSC as good faith purchasers without notice. |
| Whether cursory references (grantor’s land) can serve as a pointer to identify the servient tenement | DRD argues reference to grantor’s land plus public records identifies burdened land. | Flickemas/PSC maintain lack of specific location or reference to identify servient estate. | Grantor’s land alone is insufficient to identify servient land. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ford v. Ford, 24 S.D. 644 (1910) (identification helper principle: description must enable location of land)
- Fullerton Lumber Co. v. Tinker, 22 S.D. 427 (1908) (constructive notice via indexes; descriptions in title records matter)
- Bernardy v. Colonial & U. S. Mortgage Co., 17 S.D. 637 (1904) (notice of recorded conveyances impacts purchaser)
- Betts v. Letcher, 1 S.D. 182 (1890) (notices and prudent inquiry concepts for prior conveyances)
- Schlecht v. Hinrich, 50 S.D. 360 (1926) (description must enable identification or lead to certainty)