Ganoung v. Stiles, 398 P.3d 282

Dispute between neighboring owners over reciprocal express easements across a subdivided family parcel in Madison County, Montana; Plaintiffs (Ganoung and Mason) own southern half, Defendants (Stiles family/guardians) own northern half.
Deeds (1982 and 2004) granted identical language: “together with easement for access over lands of grantor,” but did not specify location, width, or scope.
Historically there were two unpaved, two-track routes across the southern parcel used to access the northern parcel for horse pasture, hunting, recreation, and occasional vehicle use.
In June 2014 Matthew (Stiles) installed a fence with gates at the two historic crossing points; Plaintiffs sometimes locked their south entrance gate, prompting Stiles to seek injunctive relief and damages.
Plaintiffs sued to quiet title and fix the Stiles’ easement; the district court limited the Stiles to only the western two-track route and allowed a future relocated 20-foot improved road if built at Stiles’ expense; appealed by Stiles.
Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part: held Stiles entitled to both historical two-track routes (consistent use) but rejected expansion to 60-foot roads for subdivision; upheld requirement that Stiles would bear cost of constructing/fencing any entirely new relocated road consented to by Plaintiffs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Location/width/scope of Stiles’ express easement across southern parcel	Easement limited to one access (western two-track) consistent with necessity and historical use	Entitled to both two-track routes that existed and were used when easements were created	Court: Entitled to both two-track roadways; cannot expand to 60-foot subdivision roads
Ability to expand easement for subdivision or residence	Expansion to 60-foot easements or new development unreasonable and “revolutionary”	Need broader width for development; grant language did not restrict location/width	Court: Expansion to 60-foot subdivision roads denied — not reasonable or historically supported
Who bears cost for constructing/fencing a newly located improved road	Plaintiffs require Stiles to pay fencing/road costs if new route constructed across Plaintiffs’ land	Stiles argue they should not be forced to fund fencing for their express easement	Court: If Stiles choose to build an entirely new relocated road (not historically based) and Plaintiffs consented (judicial admission), Stiles must bear cost; not required to build new route if unwilling
District court’s omission of scope/location of Plaintiffs’ easement across Stiles’ land	Plaintiffs: issue not contested at trial	Defendants: court erred by not defining Plaintiffs’ easement	Court: No error — issue not raised in pretrial order and thus not litigated

Clark v. Pennock, 357 Mont. 338 (2010) (trial-court findings reviewed for clear error; scope of express easement determined by grant and historical use)
Guthrie v. Hardy, 305 Mont. 367 (2001) (easement use may evolve so long as changes are evolutionary, not revolutionary)
Ponderosa Pines Ranch, Inc. v. Hevner, 311 Mont. 82 (2002) (when location not fixed in grant, court may ascertain location by historical use)
Strahan v. Bush, 237 Mont. 265 (1989) (particular course of use with acquiescence fixes and limits an otherwise general grant)
Woods v. Shannon, 378 Mont. 365 (2015) (express easement scope determined by written instrument and historical use)