342 P.3d 22
Mont.2015Background
- Meines seek prescriptive easement over Small Horn Canyon Road across Hren land to Mussard/Meine parcels; use dates back ~90 years with continuous, adverse use since 1979; Hren gates and maintenance disputes arose after 2007 lock changes; road maintained and used by Meines and invitees for grazing, timber, recreation, and guest ranch activities; district court found Meines’ use adverse, open, notorious, continuous, and based on right rather than permissive neighborly accommodation; court held easement appurtenant to Mussard/Meine parcels and in gross for Blakes, width 20 feet, including access to a parking/loading area near corrals; final judgment enjoined Hren from blocking the easement and required restoration of cattle guards/gates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether noncontiguous dominant and servient estates can support a prescriptive easement | Meines argue prescription can attach to Mussard/Meine parcels despite noncontiguity | Hren contend easement must be contiguous | Contiguity not required for prescription (affirmative) |
| Whether creation of prescriptive easement requires dominant use to be legal | Meines use for lawful purposes shows adverse right | Alleged illegal uses could defeat prescriptive rights | illegal uses not required to defeat prescriptive easement; court found substantial lawful use evidence |
| Whether evidence supports prescriptive easement given five-year statutory period | Use since homestead days constitutes continuous adverse use | No clear five-year period with privity/tacking shown | Evidence supports five-year continuous adverse use; tacking not required |
| Whether scope and width of easement and corrals parking area are proper | Road width 20 feet, includes parking/loading near corrals | Road narrower (14 feet) and corrals not part of easement | Width 20 feet supported; corrals used only as reference point; parking/loading area included as scope; invitees permitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Hall, 365 Mont. 216 (2012 MT 125) (distinguishes appurtenant vs in gross easements; contiguity not required for prescription)
- Blazer v. Wall, 183 P.3d 84 (2008 MT 145) (defines appurtenant vs in gross easements)
- Jones v. Stevens, 177 N.E. 91 (Mass. 1931) (contiguity not required for prescription in some contexts)
- Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996) (majority support for noncontiguous prescriptive easements)
- Leichtfuss v. Dabney, - (2005 MT 271) (prescriptive burden includes open, notorious, adverse use; tacking permitted between privity)
- Slauson v. Marozzo Plumbing & Heating, LLC, 353 Mont. 75 (2009 MT 333) (prescriptive easement may be appurtenant)
- Rasmussen v. Fowler, 245 Mont. 308 (1990) (recognizes prescriptive easement concepts in Montana)
- Burleson v. Kinsey-Cartwright, 302 Mont. 141 (2000 MT 278) (easements conveyed with property)