Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp.
2010 WY 160
| Wyo. | 2010Background
- Common ownership of 3100 East Yellowstone and 3110 East Yellowstone prior to severance; Lariat acquires 3100 with implied ingress/egress easement over 3110.
- 1996 LLC granted an Access Agreement allowing egress/ingress over the southerly 100 feet of 3110 in connection with a sewer easement, recorded the same day as Petley’s purchase of 3110.
- Petley acquired 3110 and later sold to Wildcat Whackers; Hansulds later purchased 3110 in 2001 and began denying access across 3110.
- Abandonment of part of East Yellowstone road in 2001 added land to Hansulds’ and Lariat’s properties; Hansulds eventually filed suit to quiet title and for declaratory relief on the implied easement.
- District court found an implied water line easement did not exist and that the water line could be substituted by a new line; Lariat sought a precise description of the access easement; remand and appeals followed.
- Litigations proceeded with cross-motions for summary judgment on the implied water line easement and on the precise location of the access easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there an implied water line easement across Lariat in favor of Hansulds? | Hansulds: implied easement necessary and beneficial; alternative routing is costly ($25,000) and burdensome. | Lariat: no implied water-line easement; Hansulds can install their own line and bear the cost. | Yes; implied easement exists; cost imbalance favors implied easement. |
| Is Lariat entitled to a precise metes-and-bounds description of the access easement across Hansulds’ property, or are res judicata/collateral estoppel preclusive? | Lariat: seeks exact location; argue prior judgment precludes such relief. | Hansulds: location was not at issue in the prior case; collateral estoppel/res judicata do not bar now. | Neither res judicata nor collateral estoppel precludes; location issue is distinct and remanded for determination. |
Key Cases Cited
- Shirran v. Shirran, 987 P.2d 140 (Wy. 1999) (implied easements; factors for necessity and continuation of prior use)
- Beaudoin v. Kibbie, 905 P.2d 939 (Wy. 1995) (implied easements; clarified standards for implication)
- Corbett v. Whitney, 603 P.2d 1291 (Wy. 1979) (implied easements; necessity and conveyance context)
- Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 81 P.3d 215 (Wyo. 2003) (Hansuld I; implied access easement across property; antecedent discussion of elements)
- Kawulok v. Legerski, 165 P.3d 112 (Wy. 2007) (implied easements; compatibility with severance and prior use)