Earl v. Pavex
2013 MT 343
Mont.2013Background
- Two overlapping easements burdened land now owned by James and Rachel Earl: a preexisting 30-foot easement (ingress/egress/utilities) and a separately granted 100-foot easement benefitting adjoining Pavex property.
- Keims (common prior owner) conveyed Tract 1A to Pavex in Sept. 2006 and expressly granted a 100-foot easement over the retained Tract 2A; that deed was recorded.
- Keims sold Tract 2A to the Earls in April 2007 by contract for deed; that conveyance did not mention the 100-foot easement. The Earls knew of the 30-foot easement but claimed no notice of the 100-foot easement until 2008.
- Earls sued to invalidate the 100-foot easement (arguing it was not in their chain of title) or, alternatively, to hold they need not remove existing structures/cropland that encroach on the easements.
- District Court held the 100-foot easement did not burden the Earls (granted them summary judgment) but held encroachments might need removal; Supreme Court reversed on the recording/notice issue, affirmed on removal principle, and remanded for factual determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Earls) | Defendant's Argument (Pavex) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 100-foot easement was extinguished by failure to appear in the Earls’ chain of title | The easement must appear in deeds "to" the buyer or direct predecessor; because the Keims–Pavex deed was not in the Earls’ direct conveyance chain, the Earls lacked constructive notice and the easement is extinguished | A properly recorded deed granting the easement puts subsequent purchasers on constructive notice; a purchaser must search the prior owners’ recorded conveyances (broad chain-of-title) | Reversed District Court: the Earls had constructive notice of the recorded 100-foot easement; easement enforceable against them; Nelson v. Barlow (narrow rule) overruled to the extent inconsistent |
| Whether the Earls may keep structures/cropland that encroach within the 30- and 100-foot easements | Pavex took the easements subject to open, existing encroachments; alternatively, the Earls have an implied easement to continue use of their structures/cropland | Encroachments that unreasonably interfere with easement rights must be removed; servient owner may not maintain obstructions that prevent reasonable use by dominant owner | Affirmed in principle: encroachments that unreasonably interfere with Pavex’s easement rights must be removed. Whether encroachment is unreasonable and the precise 100-foot easement location are factual issues to be determined on remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. Barlow, 342 Mont. 93 (Mont. 2008) (prior Montana decision adopting a narrow chain-of-title approach; limitedly overruled)
- Witter v. Taggart, 577 N.E.2d 338 (N.Y. 1991) (advocates narrow chain-of-title; search only the direct grantee line)
- Dukes v. Link, 315 S.W.3d 712 (Ky. App. 2010) (supports broad chain-of-title: recorded easement by common grantor binds subsequent purchaser of servient tract)
- KeyBank N.A. v. NBD Bank, 699 N.E.2d 322 (Ind. App. 1998) (recording must be discoverable in the proper chain of title to impart constructive notice)
- Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel-Joukova, 362 Mont. 1 (Mont. 2011) (reasonableness balancing for obstruction of easements)