319 P.3d 485
Idaho2014Background
- RP & H owns an express easement over American Street for ingress/egress; Highway 101 Investments later acquired the servient estate and erected a 20-foot-wide permanent sign within the easement.
- The sign sits atop a large post with two bollards, reducing the observable easement width at the post/bollards to just over 19 feet for a portion of the easement.
- The sign was erected in 2008; Highway 101 acquired the easement in fee simple in 2009.
- RP & H sued in 2010 seeking an injunction against the obstruction; the district court granted summary judgment to Highway 101, finding no material interference with RP & H’s use.
- Idaho law restricts the servient owner from unreasonably burdening the dominant estate’s easement; the court adopted a per se rule that a permanent structure within an easement of definite location and dimensions is per se unreasonable.
- The opinion holds that the district court erred by applying a reasonableness standard and reverses/remands for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a permanent structure within a definite easement is per se unreasonable | RP & H argues per se rule; sign unreasonably interferes | Highway 101 maintains structure within easement is not unreasonable | Per se unreasonable; reverse and remand |
| Whether Nampa & Meridian controls the case | RP & H relies on Nampa & Meridian to apply reasonableness | District court correctly followed precedent distinguishing Nampa & Meridian | Nampa & Meridian controls; not controlling here according to majority |
| Whether the case should be remanded for further proceedings | Remand for fact-specific assessment of interference | No genuine issue of material fact; summary judgment proper | Remanded for proceedings consistent with opinion |
Key Cases Cited
- Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 283 P.3d 728 (Idaho 2012) (easement rights; reasonable-use standard)
- Conley v. Whittlesey, 985 P.2d 1127 (Idaho 1999) (dominant-servient rights; interference standard)
- Ruddy-Lamarca v. Dalton Gardens Irrigation Dist., 291 P.3d 437 (Idaho 2012) (reasonableness standard governs easement width limitations)
- Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Washington Fed. Savings, 20 P.3d 702 (Idaho 2001) (definite-location easement; reasonableness applied vs. per-se rule)
- Mill Pond Condo. Ass’n v. Manalio, 910 A.2d 392 (Me. 2006) (discussion of majority vs. minority rule on permanent encroachments)