Leeks Canyon Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company Leeks Canyon, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company Elizabeth Lockhart and Kelly Lockhart, wife and husband v. Callahan River Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company and Porter River Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, 327 P.3d 732

Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch divided in 1992 among siblings’ descendants with a road/utility easement intended to access Parcel 19.
Parcel 19 remained with the Trust; Parcels 20, 24, and 27 went to LLCs; Parcel 25 stayed with the Trust; Parcel 27 to Roliz.
1998 conveyance from the Trust to Elizabeth Lockhart conveyed Parcel 19 with language mirroring the 1992 easement language.
Lockharts used the road to Parcel 19 from Shootin’ Iron County Road 22-20 without interference for years.
Dispute arose after arbitration split the Ranch; Gills challenged the easement as non-existent or improperly described.
District court held the easement either non-existent or improperly described under § 34-1-141; appellate reversal follows.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the grantor reserve part of the disputed easement in 1992?	Lockharts: 1992 deeds reserved an easement benefiting Parcel 19.	Gills: no valid reservation due to vague language and lack of explicit reservation.	Yes, reserved easement found
Is the 1992/1998 easement description specific enough under § 34-1-141?	Lockharts: description locates the easement on an existing road; sufficiently specific.	Gills: language insufficient to describe location; void unless recorded within one year.	Sufficient specificity; meets statute
Is the easement appurtenant or in gross?	Lockharts: easement appurtenant to Parcel 19, benefiting its use and transferability.	Gills: not argued; non-appurtenant could have different implications.	Appurtenant
Did the 1998 conveyance to Lockhart convey an easement across Parcel 25?	Lockharts: 1998 language with 'together with' conveys the easement across Parcel 25.	Gills: identical language should not alter the reservation analysis; parcel split may disrupt access.	Yes, conveyed across Parcel 25

Wallis v. Luman, 625 P.2d 759 (Wyoming 1981) (no special wording required to reserve an easement; intent controls)
Hasvold v. Park Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 45 P.3d 635 (Wyoming 2002) (defines appurtenant vs in gross and uses Restatement guidance)
Pokorny v. Salas, 81 P.3d 171 (Wyoming 2003) (found easement appurtenant due to surrounding circumstances)
Markstein v. Countryside I, LLC, 77 P.3d 389 (Wyoming 2003) (descriptions may be sufficiently definite depending on encumbrance type)
Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney General, 221 P.3d 306 (Wyoming 2009) (nature of encumbrance determines description sufficiency; adjacent example)
Lozier v. Blattland Invs., LLC, 100 P.3d 380 (Wyoming 2004) (dominant tenement identification not always required if location is identifiable)
Ecosystem Res., L.C. v. Broadbent Land & Res., L.L.C., 158 P.3d 685 (Wyoming 2007) (consider surrounding circumstances to interpret deeds even if unambiguous)
Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 81 P.3d 215 (Wyoming 2003) (implied easement doctrine separate from express terms)
Balch v. Arnold, 59 P.434 (Wyoming 1899) (intention of parties examined by all provisions and circumstances)