Knight v. NYARA
240 Or. App. 586
Or. Ct. App.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Albert and Carol Knight owned 10 acres on a river meander; they built a pond and an elevated driveway with a dammed embankment, culvert, stand pipe, and water management features.
- They partitioned the property in 1995 into three parcels; Parcel 3 included the pond and residence, and Parcel 2 (downstream) was sold to defendants Bill and Robbie Nyara in 2005 with an easement reserved for Parcel 3.
- The easement granted for access and utilities to Parcel 3 was described as exclusive for that purpose, while still allowing defendants to use their burdened property in ways that do not unreasonably interfere with plaintiffs’ use for access and utilities.
- Defendants began disputing plaintiffs’ watering and vegetation within the easement area, disabled the spigot, and erected barriers at a T-intersection to prevent vehicle access; plaintiffs maintained vegetation and watered the easement, asserting it was within the easement’s scope.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment to plaintiffs on the interpretation of exclusivity and that plaintiffs’ use was reasonably related to maintaining the easement, but dismissed defendants’ counterclaims for trespass; on de novo review, the Court of Appeals reversed part of the ruling (limiting exclusivity to exclusive use for access and utilities) and remanded for a judgment granting defendants broader but not unlimited uses of the easement, while affirming dismissal of the trespass counterclaim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the easement’s term exclusive for access and utilities was overbroad. | Knight(s) argue exclusivity bars all use by defendants. | Nyara(s) contend servient owner rights allow noninterfering uses. | Exclusive limited to access/utilities; servient owners may use otherwise. |
| Whether plaintiffs’ boulder barrier was a reasonable maintenance of exclusivity. | Barrier necessary to preserve plaintiffs’ exclusive use of the easement. | Barrier unnecessary; defendants’ barrier was sufficient. | Barrier placement reasonable to maintain exclusive use; affirmed de novo review on this issue. |
| Whether pond drainage and weed intrusion constituted trespass justifying injunction. | Intrusion harms defendants; plaintiffs must be allowed to maintain easement. | Drainage/weed intrusion constitutes trespass; injunction warranted. | No irreparable harm or continuing threat; no injunction; trespass counterclaim dismissed. |
| What remedy should be entered on remand regarding easement rights of both parties. | Plaintiffs retain exclusive access/utility rights. | Defendants retain reasonable reciprocal use. | Remand for judgment granting non-substantial interferences by defendants consistent with plaintiffs’ exclusive rights; otherwise affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- D'Abbracci v. Shaw-Bastian, 201 Or.App. 108 (2005) (defines easement scope: dominant uses limited; servient rights preserved)
- Watson v. Banducci, 158 Or.App. 223 (1999) (easement purpose construed from words and document as a whole)
- Bernards v. Link and Haynes, 199 Or. 579 (1952) (easement interpretation; purpose and reasonableness controls)
- Wilson v. Parent, 228 Or. 354 (1961) (equitable relief requires irreparable harm and enforceability concerns)