H.F.L.P., LLC v. City of Twin Falls
157 Idaho 672
| Idaho | 2014Background
- H.F.L.P., LLC owns three parcels in the Snake River Canyon west of Rock Creek; the City of Twin Falls owns most intervening parcels including land from the wastewater treatment plant west past Rock Creek. H.F.L.P. claims a historic single-vehicle dirt road provides access to its landlocked parcels.
- H.F.L.P. asserted an easement by prescription (originally pled as 20 years, later argued under a five-year statute) over City-owned land east of Rock Creek and an easement by necessity over City land west of Rock Creek. At trial H.F.L.P. conceded it could not prove unity of title east of Rock Creek and focused its necessity claim west of Rock Creek.
- Primary evidence for historic use came from one principal witness (Carl Urie) and limited corroboration; documentary exhibits (deeds, maps, chain-of-title summaries) were admitted but not clearly linked or organized for the court.
- The district court concluded H.F.L.P. failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence (1) the continuous/uninterrupted element and statutory period for prescription, (2) adversity/claim of right (finding permissive use given unimproved public land and keys were provided), and (3) unity of title for easement by necessity. The court also held it had subject-matter jurisdiction because the United States did not claim a current interest in the property.
- H.F.L.P. appealed, raising jurisdiction, sufficiency of evidence for prescriptive and necessity easements, and the admission of aerial-photo overlays. The Supreme Court of Idaho affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Subject-matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §1346(f) | Federal jurisdiction is exclusive because the land was once BLM land during the prescriptive period | State court jurisdiction proper because the United States did not claim a current interest when suit filed | State court had jurisdiction; §1346(f) requires a present U.S. claim of interest |
| Prescriptive easement — continuous/uninterrupted & statutory period | Urie’s undisputed testimony of family use from 1930s–1984 proves continuity and statutory period | Testimony was uncorroborated, lacked a clear triggering date; court cannot find continuity for a defined statutory five-year period | Affirmed: insufficient clear and convincing evidence of continuity/statutory period |
| Prescriptive easement — adverse/claim of right (presumption of permissive use) | Use was adverse; keys and City staff acknowledgment show recognition of vested access right | Land was wild/unimproved so permissive-use presumption applies; keys and City conduct show permission | Affirmed: land unimproved, permissive use presumed and not rebutted — no adverse use established |
| Easement by necessity — unity of title (and standard of proof) | Unity of title existed west of Rock Creek (tested at trial by consent); trial evidence suffices | H.F.L.P. failed to prove unity of title; claim not pled for west of Rock Creek but tried by implied consent | Affirmed: easement by necessity not shown — insufficient, unarticulated chain-of-title proof; Court declined to consider challenge to clear-and-convincing standard raised in reply brief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474 (clear-and-convincing standard and elements for prescriptive easement)
- Hodgins v. Sales, 139 Idaho 225 (standard of review for intertwined fact-law prescriptive-easement findings)
- Anderson v. Larsen, 136 Idaho 402 (deference to trial court findings and substantial-evidence review)
- Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, 98 Idaho 633 (prescription disfavored; presumption rules)
- Wood v. Hoglund, 131 Idaho 700 (prescriptive rights cannot be based on owner’s permission)
- Cox v. Cox, 84 Idaho 513 (presumption of permissive use over wild or unimproved land)
- Christle v. Scott, 110 Idaho 829 (use of lock/key and unimproved land supports presumption of permissive use)
- Tyrolean Associates v. City of Ketchum, 100 Idaho 703 (prescriptive easements against public land are barred)
- Robinson v. United States, 586 F.3d 683 (§1346(f) requires current U.S. claim to oust state jurisdiction)
- United States v. California, 332 U.S. 19 (limits on acquiring prescriptive rights against the U.S.)