327 P.3d 732
Wyo.2014Background
- Robert Bruce Porter Trust owned the Jackson Hole Hereford Ranch and later subdivided it into parcels including Parcels 19, 20, 24, 25, and 27 to various successors and LLCs.
- 1992 conveyances to JHHR, Roliz, and CCNP reserved/created a 60-foot road and utility easement to generally follow existing roads to Shootin' Iron County Road 22-20, through multiple sections, for Parcel 19 access.
- 1998 conveyance of Parcel 19 to Elizabeth Lockhart used similar language, purportedly granting an easement to Parcel 19 along the same road.
- Historically, the road route from Parcel 19 to Shootin' Iron Road existed and was used by all owners, including the Lockharts after 1998.
- Arbitration divided the Ranch between Gill and Lockhart; Gill challenged the existence of a valid easement, Lockhart counterclaimed for an express/implied easement.
- District court found the 1992/1998 easement descriptions lacked specificity under Wyoming statute and granted summary judgment for the Gills; this Court reversed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the grantor reserve part of the disputed easement in 1992? | Gills: easement not reserved; no express reservation language. | Lockhart: language and surrounding circumstances show intent to reserve an easement. | Yes, easement reserved. |
| Is the casement language in the deeds specific enough under § 34-1-141? | Gills: language 'to generally follow' and 'location to be determined' are insufficient and not recorded within one year. | Lockhart: language is sufficiently specific to locate the easement given the road exists and is identifiable. | Yes, sufficiently specific. |
| Is the easement appurtenant or in gross? | Gills: ambiguous intent; may be in gross if not tied to land use. | Lockhart: intended to benefit Parcel 19 to access development; appurtenant. | Appurtenant. |
| Did the grantor convey an easement across Parcel 25 in the 1998 conveyance? | Gills: no separate easement conveyed across Parcel 25; unity of ownership undermines conveyance. | Lockhart: 'together with' conveys Parcel 19 and the road easement across Parcel 25. | Yes, easement conveyed across Parcel 25. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hasvold v. Park Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 2002 WY 65 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2002) (defines easement concept and appurtenant vs in gross as applied to Wyoming law)
- Pokorny v. Salas, 2003 WY 159 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003) (discusses appurtenant versus in gross and surrounding circumstances in reserving easements)
- Horse Creek Conservation Dist. v. State ex rel. Wyo. Attorney General, 2009 WY 148 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2009) (clarifies sufficiency of description for easements in context of § 34-1-141)
- Markstein v. Countryside I, L.L.C., 2003 WY 122 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2003) (recognizes varying descriptiveness depending on encumbrance type)
- Lozier v. Blattland Invs., LLC, 2004 WY 132 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 2004) (illustrates location requirements for easements)
- Wallis v. Luman, 625 P.2d 759 (Wyoming Supreme Court, 1981) (early articulation on reservation of easements in deeds)