Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC, 317 P.3d 1124

Background

Terry and Colleen Miner purchased the "West Parcel" (part of Lot 1) in August 2009 and soon discovered the rear of a four‑plex at 388 Buchanan encroached ~5 feet onto their parcel along ~64 feet of the building.
The four‑plex was built in 2005 by Susan Jaycox when she owned all of Lot 1; she separately mortgaged and later lost (foreclosure) the North and South Parcels that contain the bulk of the building.
The Miners sued the LLC owners of the North and South Parcels seeking title to the encroaching portion, partition or removal of the encroaching part, ejectment, trespass damages, and a share of rental income.
The district court granted summary judgment that the encroaching portion is not an "improvement" or "appurtenance" to the West Parcel, so the Miners do not own any part of the building and cannot seek partition or ejectment based on ownership.
After a bench trial the court found the North and South Parcels hold an implied easement over the West Parcel (to accommodate the building, parking, and the 5‑foot setback) and enjoined the Miners from interfering with that easement; the court denied trespass/ejectment/partition claims.
The Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed, agreeing the encroaching structure is not an improvement to the West Parcel and that an implied easement existed; it remanded narrowly to correct a clerical description error in the easement language if needed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Miner)	Defendant's Argument (LLCs)	Held
1. Do the Miners own the encroaching ~20% of the building?	The deed conveyed "improvements" and appurtenances to the West Parcel, so the encroaching structure passed to the Miners.	The building was not an improvement/appurtenance to the West Parcel; Jaycox did not intend it as part of that parcel.	Affirmed: not an improvement or appurtenance; Miners hold no title to the building.
2. Did the district court err in using deed language and extrinsic evidence to determine whether the structure was an improvement?	The Miners argued the court misinterpreted clear deed language and improperly considered parol evidence/self‑serving affidavits.	The court permissibly used surrounding circumstances (construction plans, use, possession) to interpret deed terms; affidavits described objective circumstances, not collateral agreements.	Affirmed: extrinsic evidence was admissible to interpret deed context; Jaycox affidavits were admissible and uncontradicted.
3. Is an implied easement established for the LLCs to occupy the West Parcel with the building and setback?	The Miners contended the encroachment was not an "apparent" use and Wyoming law does not support implied easements for buildings; alternative: private taking.	LLCs argued unified ownership/visible continuous use before severance, and the easement is necessary and beneficial for continued use of the building.	Affirmed: implied easement exists (common ownership then severance; use was apparent/continuous; easement necessary); not a compensable taking.
4. Is partition/ejectment/removal or monetary damages the appropriate remedy?	Miners sought partition/ejectment or removal and trespass damages, plus apportionment of rent.	LLCs argued no ownership by Miners and that implied easement precludes ejectment/partition; injunctive relief to prevent interference.	Affirmed: partition/ejectment not available without ownership; trespass/ejectment claims fail given implied easement; injunction granted to protect easement.

Key Cases Cited

Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 245 P.3d 293 (Wyo. 2010) (elements and purpose of implied easements; infer parties' intent at severance)
Corbett v. Whitney, 603 P.2d 1291 (Wyo. 1979) (apparent use defined as ascertainable by reasonable inspection for implied easement analysis)
Covington v. W.R. Grace-Conn., Inc., 952 P.2d 1105 (Wyo. 1998) (definition of "improvement")
Bush v. Duff, 754 P.2d 159 (Wyo. 1988) (recognition that easement by necessity/common‑law way is not a compensable taking)