Background

• Cooley and Musselshell Ranch Company own the majority of water rights and the ditch; the Cooley-Goffena ditch runs through Joukova's property with historic maintenance rights
• In 2002 the Highway 12 road-widening project relocated the ditch to present location on Joukova's land, with an easement recorded for MRC but not covering the entire ditch
• The recorded easement covers under 200 yards of the ditch through Joukova's property; the remainder is claimed by prescriptive historical use
• In 2006 Joukova purchased the subdivided land; she gravelled a road along the ditch and installed a culvert and rock bridge in 2009 without written permission
• MRC maintained the ditch and argued Joukova’s structure encroached on its secondary easement rights and impaired its ability to repair and maintain the ditch
• District Court found Joukova’s culvert did not obstruct water flow and that access improvements were not an unreasonable interference, and ordered access provisions and gate reinstatement without awarding fees
• MRC appealed, contending the culvert/bridge unreasonably interfered with the secondary easement and violated § 70-17-112, MCA; the court reversed and remanded for removal of the structure
• This Court reversed the District Court, holding the culvert and rock bridge constitute an encroachment and impairment of MRC’s ditch easement and must be removed, remanding for entry of removal order

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Laden v. Atkeson, 112 Mont. 302 (Mont. 1941) (secondary easement is an incident of the primary easement allowing maintenance rights)
• Gabriel v. Wood, 261 Mont. 170 (Mont. 1993) (obstructions must not interfere with reasonable use of the right-of-way; gate scenarios considered)
• Engel v. Gampp, 2000 MT 17, 298 Mont. 116, 993 P.2d 701 (Mont. 2000) (discussed secondary easements; held in Engel that interference must be understood in context of the district court's creation of alternate easements)
• Mason v. Garrison, 2000 MT 78, 299 Mont. 142, 998 P.2d 531 (Mont. 2000) (reasonable exercise of easement rights; fact-specific)
• Flynn v. Siren, 219 Mont. 359, 711 P.2d 1371 (Mont. 1986) (gate across easement may be unreasonable if it obstructs passage)
• Stamm v. Kehrer, 222 Mont. 167, 720 P.2d 1194 (Mont. 1986) (fence/gate across easement can unreasonably interfere)
• Byrum v. Andren, 2007 MT 107, 337 Mont. 167, 159 P.3d 1062 (Mont. 2007) (impairment of easement rights can support claims even when access is eventually allowed)
• Kephart v. Portmann, 259 Mont. 232, 855 P.2d 120 (Mont. 1993) (impairment of easement rights after entry can be actionable)