Eric N. Nerland v. Kristy Lee Marie Barsch
A16-318
| Minn. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Lake of the Woods Estates was platted by Kenneth and Ethel Stoeckmann; appellant (Barsch) owns Lot 5, Block 1 and respondent (Nerland) owns Lot 5, Block 4.
- Stoeckmann Land Co. (a corporate vehicle of the Stoeckmanns) reserved an easement over Lot 5, Block 1 in a 1993 deed to Kovar, describing the easement as for "Stoeckmann Land Co., its successors, assigns, and permittees."
- Nerland sued Barsch (2014) seeking declaration and injunction that he has a lake-access easement across her lot; trial was held and the district court found an express easement and, alternatively, an implied easement by necessity.
- Barsch argued no express easement benefits Nerland’s specific lot because the record does not show Stoeckmann Land Co. owned Lot 5, Block 4 when the easement was created; she also pointed to a 1974 restrictive covenant and a 2011 county zoning ordinance as precluding the easement.
- The court affirmed that the 1993 Kovar deed created an easement in favor of Stoeckmann Land Co., but found the record insufficient to support that Nerland is the dominant-estate owner; the court remanded for further findings on whether Nerland is a successor/assignee/permittee (express easement) and for factual findings on the implied-easement-by-necessity theory.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Nerland) | Defendant's Argument (Barsch) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express easement benefits Lot 5, Block 4 | 1993 deed reserved an easement to Stoeckmann Land Co. "and its successors, assigns, and permittees," so Nerland as current lot owner benefits | Record does not show Stoeckmann Land Co. owned Lot 5, Block 4 when easement was created; Nerland has not proved he is successor/assign/permittee | Court: Kovar deed created an easement in favor of Stoeckmann Land Co.; reversed district-court finding that Nerland is dominant-owner and remanded for findings on ownership/successor/permittee status |
| Whether an implied easement by necessity exists | Alternative theory: implied easement by necessity arose at severance | Pleading and proof insufficient; necessity not established at time of severance | Court: District court addressed necessity but made no adequate findings; remanded for specific findings on time of severance, necessity, and permanence |
| Whether Nerland properly pleaded or preserved implied-easement claim | Pleadings and trial evidence gave notice; trial and post-trial briefing presented the theory | Barsch objected that the claim was not pleaded or amended; relief on unpled issues improper without consent | Court: Pleadings construed liberally and issues were litigated by consent; addressing implied-easement theory was permissible |
| Whether restrictive covenant or 2011 zoning ordinance invalidates easement | N/A (easement predates ordinance) | 1974 covenant and 2011 zoning restrict recreational uses and thus preclude lake-access easement | Court: 1974 covenant limits building/use but does not bar access easements; 2011 ordinance preserves existing easements; court rejected Barsch’s arguments on these grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Braaten v. Jarvi, 347 N.W.2d 279 (Minn. App. 1984) (easement can be created by express grant)
- Miller v. Snedeker, 101 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. 1960) (identification of servient land and intent required to create an easement)
- Alvin v. Johnson, 63 N.W.2d 22 (Minn. 1954) (an easement appurtenant attaches to the dominant estate and follows it into whosesoever hands)
- Rosendahl v. Nelson, 408 N.W.2d 609 (Minn. App. 1987) (factors supporting implied easement by necessity assessed through facts showing prohibitively costly alternative access)
- Niehaus v. City of Litchfield, 529 N.W.2d 410 (Minn. App. 1995) (elements and timing for implied easement by necessity; necessity must exist at severance)
- Gams v. Houghton, 884 N.W.2d 611 (Minn. 2016) (remand required when district court makes conclusory findings that prevent effective appellate review)