350 P.3d 1191
N.M. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 1979 Jones purchased a written, appurtenant 20-foot easement over Mayer’s (servient) land for ingress and egress for personal, household, and non‑commercial purposes; the deed granted the easement to Jones, his family, heirs, and assigns.
- Jones cleared a path within the easement and used it regularly to access Tract 5B for landscaping, wood cutting, pinon picking, occasional machinery, and snow plowing.
- Jones later sold Tract 5C (which together with Tract 5B comprised the original dominant estate) to Long in 2009; after that sale, the easement remained the only vehicular access to Tract 5B.
- Mayer erected a fence using trees growing inside the easement as posts, narrowing the usable width to roughly 9–11 feet in places and obstructing the full 20‑foot easement.
- Intervenors (Jones and Long), as dominant‑estate owners, sought to enforce the easement and remove the fence; the district court allowed the fence to remain, limited the easement to historic/cleared use, and held the dominant estate belonged only to Long.
- The Court of Appeals reversed: it held the written easement was unambiguous and must be construed from its four corners, the fence must be removed to allow access to the full 20 feet, and the easement remains appurtenant to the entire (now divided) dominant estate (both Intervenors).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of easement — may court use extrinsic evidence to limit scope? | Mayer argued historic use justified limiting practical scope and leaving fence in place. | Intervenors argued the unambiguous deed controls and permits full 20‑ft access for stated uses. | Court held the deed is unambiguous; extrinsic evidence is improper to limit scope; deed controls. |
| Whether Mayer may keep fence within the 20‑ft easement | Mayer relied on historic cleared width and past use to justify fence location. | Intervenors said fence unlawfully encroaches and must be removed to restore full 20‑ft access. | Court held fence encroaches; Mayer must remove it so Intervenors can use full 20 feet. |
| Whether division/sale of dominant estate (Tract 5C) extinguished or limited easement | Mayer (and district court) treated easement as benefiting one family/one parcel only. | Intervenors argued easement is appurtenant and runs with the land, so subdivision does not extinguish rights. | Court held easement remains appurtenant to the entire dominant estate; subdivision does not extinguish or necessarily add burden. |
| Whether additional burden arose from increased number of dominant‑estate owners | Mayer argued increased beneficiaries created an impermissible added burden on servient estate. | Intervenors argued mere increase in owners does not, without change in use, create new burden. | Court held no evidence of increased use/burden; mere division of ownership does not constitute additional burden. |
Key Cases Cited
- Varos v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 688 P.2d 31 (N.M. Ct. App. 1984) (undisputed facts become facts on appeal).
- Kikta v. Hughes, 766 P.2d 321 (N.M. Ct. App. 1988) (appurtenant easement cannot be assigned apart from dominant estate).
- Dethlefsen v. Weddle, 284 P.3d 452 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (written language of an easement is generally conclusive; extrinsic evidence inappropriate absent ambiguity).
- Skeen v. Boyles, 213 P.3d 531 (N.M. Ct. App. 2009) (scope of express easement determined by parties’ intent as derived from instrument).
- Brooks v. Tanner, 680 P.2d 343 (N.M. 1984) (specific, straightforward easement reservations require no reference to extrinsic evidence).
- Martinez v. Martinez, 604 P.2d 366 (N.M. 1979) (right of ingress and egress includes access and crossing of another’s land to obtain access).
- Maloney v. Wreyford, 804 P.2d 412 (N.M. Ct. App. 1990) (historical use determines scope of prescriptive easement — distinguished from express easements).