Freeman v. Sorchych
226 Ariz. 242
| Ariz. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- The roadway easement provides access to both Freemans and Sorchych, and its maintenance requires periodic work due to erosion.
- Freemans sued for contribution and unjust enrichment seeking half of maintenance costs from Sorchych as the other regular user.
- Trial court ruled against contribution and unjust enrichment, and awarded costs and attorney fees to Sorchych after judgment.
- Arbitration previously favored Sorchych; Freemans pursued trial court litigation, including a tortious interference claim later resolved in part.
- Arizona had no prior decision addressing contribution among dominant easement holders absent express maintenance provisions.
- Arizona Court of Appeals held that equitable contribution is available between dominant easement holders, with apportionment based on various equitable factors and not necessarily 50/50, and remanded for apportionment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether dominant easement owners must contribute to maintenance absent express agreement. | Freemans: both dominant owners share duty to repair and maintain the easement. | Sorchych: no duty to contribute absent express language or agreement or statute. | Yes; equitable contribution owed between dominant holders for necessary maintenance. |
| How to apportion contribution between Freemans and Sorchych. | Contribution should reflect proportional use and benefits, potentially 50/50 depending on factors. | No hard rule; apportionment should be equitable considering use and notice, among other factors. | Apportionment must be equitable based on multiple factors; not automatically equal or 50/50. |
| Whether Freemans can prevail on unjust enrichment. | Costs conferred a benefit to Sorchych and were not solely for Freemans' benefit; unjust enrichment possible. | No detriment to Freemans; work benefited their roadwork rather than solely Sorchych's benefit. | Unjust enrichment claim failed; no demonstrable detriment to Freemans for Sorchych's benefit. |
| Sponsor of trial court’s attorneys’ fees award on appeal and remand impact. | Fees should be considered given partial favorable issues and arbitration history. | Two-part case; claims split; fee issue premature pending remand. | Fees vacated pending remand; not decided on current record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cal. Cas. Ins. Co. v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co., 208 Ariz. 416 (Ariz. 2004) (recognizes equitable contribution in insurance/tort contexts)
- Mut. Ins. Co. of Ariz. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading Pa., 189 Ariz. 22 (Ariz. App. 1996) (limits of contribution in insurance context)
- Am. Cont'l Ins. Co. v. Am. Cas. Co. of Reading Pa., 183 Ariz. 301 (Ariz. App. 1995) (early Arizona authority on insurance-related contribution)
- W. Agric. Ins. Co. v. Indus. Indem. Ins. Co., 172 Ariz. 592 (Ariz. App. 1992) (concepts guiding equitable contribution in policy contexts)
- Powell v. Washburn, 211 Ariz. 553 (Ariz. 2006) ( Restatement (Third) guidance on servitudes and intention)
- Strawberry Water Co. v. Paulsen, 220 Ariz. 401 (Ariz. 2008) (utilizes Restatement (Third) approach for maintenance duties)
- Island Improvement Ass'n. v. Upper Greenwood Lake, 383 A.2d 134 (N.J. 1978) (principle of apportioned maintenance among easement users)