Hudson v. Irwin, 408 P.3d 1283

Background

The Hudsons own Parcel A (formerly Parcel 7A) adjacent to Irwin’s Parcel B (which contains the airstrip and tie-down area) in Ravalli County, Montana; both parcels were once part of a larger parcel divided by prior owners.
A 1981 recorded Easement Grant for COS 1075 granted each parcel in that development a non-exclusive easement to use the airport for ingress, egress, and tie-down of one airplane per parcel (appurtenant to each parcel).
Subsequent boundary relocations and re-recorded certificates of survey (1996, 2002) relocated a small 0.05-acre triangle at the north end of the airstrip onto what became Parcel B, such that the single-airplane easement physically ended up on Parcel B rather than Parcel A.
Magee (an owner during the chain) conveyed Parcel B without reserving an easement in favor of Parcel A, and later transfers left Parcel A without an express airplane easement.
The Hudsons sued for declaratory relief, quiet title, and injunctive relief asserting entitlement to access the airstrip under the 1981 Easement Grant; the District Court granted summary judgment to Irwin, denied Hudsons’ summary judgment and additional discovery on a prescriptive-easement theory, and awarded Irwin attorney fees.
The Supreme Court affirmed: Parcel A is not benefitted by the Easement Grant (so Hudsons have no access), but the Court relied on contract/easement interpretation and easement-allocation principles rather than solely on extinguishment by failure to reserve.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hudson)	Defendant's Argument (Irwin)	Held
Whether Parcel A is benefitted by the 1981 Easement Grant giving access to the airstrip	Easement Grant encumbers the development and grants each parcel equal access; Parcel A is among those parcels	The recorded boundary changes and conveyances placed the airplane easement on Parcel B; Parcel A was not reserved a benefit and thus lacks the easement	Held for Irwin: Parcel A is not benefitted under the Easement Grant; Hudsons have no easement access
Whether a landowner establishing a general plan development may create an easement on the owner’s own parcel	Hudsons argue the development scheme supports an easement created for each parcel, including when held by a single owner during drafting	Irwin relies on merger rule that an owner cannot hold an easement in his own land so such a grant would be void	Court: Exception applies — in general-plan developments an owner can create servitudes for parcels within the plan; Broadwater’s merger rule is inapplicable here
Whether merger/extinguishment occurred when one owner owned the benefited and burdened parcels	Hudsons suggest development intent preserves reciprocal benefits despite temporary common ownership	Irwin argues Magee’s conveyance without reservation extinguished Parcel A’s right	Court: Although merger doctrine exists, the development exception applies; but on the facts Parcel A lacks the airplane easement because no reservation/grant benefitted it after boundary changes
Whether attorney fees award to Irwin should be vacated if Hudsons prevailed	Hudsons seek vacatur of fees if they prevail on easement claim	Irwin claims contractual entitlement to fees under the Easement Grant and as prevailing party	Court affirms award to Irwin and remands to determine appellate fee amount; Irwin entitled to fees on appeal

Key Cases Cited

Broadwater Dev., L.L.C. v. Nelson, 352 Mont. 401 (2009) (discusses merger rule: an owner cannot hold an express easement on his own land)
Lone Moose Meadows, LLC v. Boyne USA, Inc., 387 Mont. 507 (2017) (summary-judgment standard and de novo review)
Talbot v. WMK-Davis, LLC, 385 Mont. 109 (2016) (affirming correct result even if district court’s reasoning differs)
Van Hook v. Jennings, 295 Mont. 409 (1999) (principles of contract interpretation for real-property writings)
Mularoni v. Bing, 306 Mont. 405 (2001) (contract interpretation applied to property instruments)
Mary J. Baker Revocable Tr. v. Cenex Harvest States Coops., Inc., 338 Mont. 41 (2007) (contract/easement interpretation authorities)
Wills Cattle Co. v. Shaw, 338 Mont. 351 (2007) (rules for interpreting grants affecting real property)