Lewis Clark County v. Schroeder
2014 Mont. LEXIS 232
Mont.2014Background
- Eagle Ridge Road (≈1.2 miles) lies in north Helena valley; a 1994 rural improvement district (RID) was created with an attached Map showing the road ending at a parcel labeled “Wood 11331” (~0.9 mi), though other maps showed the road ending at ~1.2 mi.
- Since creation of the RID, assessments funded snow-plowing and maintenance; the Eagle Ridge Road Association (Association) performed/contracted much maintenance, sometimes using County-titled vehicles and sometimes privately funded work.
- County paid for plowing/maintenance inconsistently on the last ~0.3 miles (the “contested stretch” beyond 0.9 mi); a landowner near the end complained in 2001 that maintenance did not reach her property.
- County sued for declaratory judgment (2010) claiming the entire road is a 60-foot public road or easement; partial summary judgment (2012) established the road is public to the “Y” (~0.7 mi) but left the contested stretch for trial.
- District Court (2013) held that the road is a public prescriptive easement from 0.9 mi to where it touches “Wood 11331” but that the remaining portion beyond that is not public because County involvement and public use were intermittent and equivocal.
- On appeal, Schroeders sought reconsideration of a prior appellate decision (Schroeder I) about the middle portion of the road; the Supreme Court declined to revisit Schroeder I by res judicata and affirmed the district court’s limited prescriptive easement finding.
Issues
| Issue | County's Argument | Schroeders/Rellers' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether this Court should revisit/clarify Schroeder I in light of the district court's order | County did not request revisiting; argues finality of district ruling supports broader public easement | Schroeders asked appellate court to "clarify" or reevaluate Schroeder I due to new evidence/Map inconsistencies | Court refused to revisit Schroeder I under res judicata; judgments concern different road segments and records differ |
| Whether a public prescriptive easement exists over the entire contested stretch (0.9–1.2 mi) | County: RID creation, recurring RID expenditures, County-titled plow and annual payments show open, notorious, continuous public use and control | Rellers/Schroeders: Maintenance and funding were inconsistent; Map and practice show the contested stretch was not uniformly treated as public; use lacked distinct hostile assertion | Court held prescriptive easement exists only from 0.9 mi to where road touches “Wood 11331”; remainder not public due to intermittent, equivocal County involvement and scant public use |
| Legal effect of RID adoption and use of public funds on easement status | County: RID formation and public spending indicate road must be public because public funds cannot be spent on private roads | Opponents: RID and payments do not automatically convert private road segments to public easements where use and maintenance were ambiguous | Court rejected automatic-conversion theory; limited and inconsistent RID involvement insufficient to establish a prescriptive public easement for entire contested stretch |
| Standard and sufficiency of evidence to prove public prescriptive easement | County: evidence of maintenance, tax assessments, and County involvement satisfied open, notorious, adverse, continuous elements | Opponents: must show a distinct, positive assertion of a hostile right and consistent public use; mere incidental or intermittent maintenance is insufficient | Court applied clear-and-convincing standard and found evidence supported only a portion of the road as prescriptive public easement |
Key Cases Cited
- Heller v. Gremaux, 311 Mont. 178 (2002) (elements of public prescriptive easement: open, notorious, adverse, continuous)
- Amerimont, Inc. v. Gannett, 278 Mont. 314 (1996) (extensive use alone insufficient; need distinct and positive assertion hostile to owner)
- McClurg v. Flathead Co. Comm’rs, 188 Mont. 20 (1980) (long-term county maintenance and public use can establish prescriptive public road)
- Rasmussen v. Fowler, 245 Mont. 308 (1990) (continuous public use and county maintenance over decades supports public easement)
- Brumit v. Lewis, 313 Mont. 332 (2002) (open and notorious use may be shown by observable maintenance and use not concealed)