Mooney v. Ashcraft
2017 MT 139N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- Ashcraft owns several lots in Moccasin, MT; Mooney owns adjacent lots and has long used a well located on Ashcraft’s Lot 11.
- In 1997 (and again in 2003) co-owner Emma Todd signed a written “Request for Water Usage” granting Mooney permission to draw water; Todd did so without informing her co-tenant(s).
- Ashcraft acquired an interest in the property in 2003 and later became sole owner in 2007; she and Harrell (Todd’s successor) were not initially aware of the 2003 written agreement.
- Mooney used and maintained the well for years, sometimes removing or replacing locks, submitted a DNRC notice claiming the well right based on Todd’s permission, and repeatedly described his use as a “privilege.”
- In June 2015 Ashcraft notified Mooney she would terminate his access; Mooney sued to enjoin shutdown.
- The district court found (1) the 2003 agreement bound Ashcraft, (2) alternatively Mooney obtained a prescriptive easement (adverse possession), and (3) alternatively laches barred Ashcraft — the Supreme Court reversed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Mooney) | Defendant's Argument (Ashcraft) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Todd’s 2003 written grant bound Ashcraft (co-tenant) | The written Agreement granted a continuing right to use the well and thus binds subsequent co-owners | One co-tenant cannot bind another; Ashcraft never authorized or ratified Todd’s act | Not binding: no agency; no ratification by Ashcraft or Harrell (no acceptance with full knowledge) |
| Whether Mooney acquired a prescriptive easement (adverse possession) | Long, open, continuous, and exclusive use established a prescriptive right | Use began as permissive (written grants) and Mooney never unequivocally repudiated permission | No prescriptive easement: use presumed permissive and Mooney didn’t show unequivocal hostile assertion |
| Whether laches bars Ashcraft’s claim to terminate access | N/A (Mooney argued Ashcraft delayed) | Ashcraft did not unreasonably delay; she raised concerns and offered to formalize permission; only objected unequivocally in 2015 | Laches does not apply; Ashcraft did not sit on her rights |
| Remedy / Disposition | Uphold district court’s judgment granting Mooney continued use | Reverse and allow Ashcraft to terminate access / enter judgment for Ashcraft | Supreme Court reversed district court and remanded to enter judgment for Ashcraft |
Key Cases Cited
- Dew v. Dower, 258 Mont. 114, 852 P.2d 549 (1993) (co-tenants are not ordinarily agents of one another)
- Safeco Ins. Co. v. Lovely Agency, 200 Mont. 447, 652 P.2d 1160 (1982) (elements required to establish ratification)
- Martin v. Randono, 175 Mont. 321, 573 P.2d 1156 (1978) (permissive use cannot ripen into adverse possession absent unequivocal hostile conduct)
- Havre Irrigation Co. v. Majerus, 132 Mont. 410, 318 P.2d 1076 (1957) (elements and formation of prescriptive rights)