Patrick T. Woodling v. Gregory Polk and Adrienne Polk
473 S.W.3d 233
Mo. Ct. App.2015Background
- In 2004 developer Post Valley, LLC (Merdinian) owned adjacent lots 1017 and 1019 Forest and recorded an “Easement Deed” purporting to grant ingress/egress/maintenance of a driveway on 1019 for the benefit of 1017, while Merdinian was listed as both grantor and grantee.
- In 2005 Merdinian adjusted the boundary so the driveway sat at least one car width fully on 1017, recorded the Boundary Adjustment, and then sold 1017 to the Healys.
- In 2006 Merdinian sold 1019 to the Polks; the Healys used the driveway wholly on 1017 and did not use the portion on 1019.
- In 2011 Woodling bought 1017 and used part of the former shared driveway partly on 1019; the Polks removed pavement on a strip of their driveway and placed rocks to prevent crossover.
- Woodling sued for declaratory judgment and permanent injunction (claiming an easement over the strip on 1019 created by the recorded Easement Deed) and for trespass; the trial court granted summary judgment for the Polks holding no easement was created and dismissed the trespass claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Merdinian’s recorded Easement Deed created an easement burdening 1019 for the benefit of 1017 when Merdinian owned both lots | Woodling: the recorded Easement Deed created an easement appurtenant to 1017 benefiting subsequent owners | Polks: an owner cannot create an easement over his own land; the Easement Deed was ineffective while common ownership existed | Held: No easement; an owner cannot create an easement in land he owns; summary judgment for Polks affirmed |
| Whether Woodling could rely on later conveyance language (Polks took subject to recorded matters) or the Boundary Adjustment to establish an easement | Woodling: deed language and recorded instruments put Polks on notice of an existing easement | Polks: the Basement Deed was ineffective; the Boundary Adjustment did not reserve an easement and deed boilerplate was not sufficiently specific | Held: Deed boilerplate and Boundary Adjustment do not create a specific easement; no easement exists |
| Whether a developer exception allows creation of easements while owning both lots for later resale | Woodling: developer exception should apply to permit such easements | Polks: Missouri law requires either creation upon severance or via proper subdivision plat; no categorical exception exists | Held: Missouri recognizes easements by deed upon severance or by plat; no free-standing developer exception; Merdinian did not follow required methods |
| Whether dismissal of trespass claim was improper because the Polks interfered with an easement | Woodling: Polks’ removal of pavement and placement of rocks trespassed on his easement rights | Polks: no easement existed; alternatively trespass may not lie against nonpossessory interests | Held: Because no easement exists, trespass claim fails; dismissal affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bali v. Gross, 565 S.W.2d 685 (Mo. App. 1978) (an owner cannot have an easement over his own land)
- Bales v. Butts, 274 S.W. 679 (Mo. 1925) (attempt to create an easement while common ownership exists is ineffective)
- Maune v. Beste, 356 S.W.3d 225 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (easement extinguished when dominant and servient estates are merged)
- Rosenbloom v. Grossman, 351 S.W.2d 735 (Mo. 1961) (easement language must be certain and definite)
- Goad v. Bennett, 480 S.W.2d 77 (Mo. App. 1972) (recorded plat reserving easement can create an easement running with the land)
- Pomona Mobile Home Park LLC v. Jett, 265 S.W.3d 396 (Mo. App. S.D. 2008) (deed reference to plat incorporates plat and easement into the deed)
- Gardner v. Maffitt, 74 S.W.2d 604 (Mo. 1934) (where plat and deed conflict, deed controls; no effective easement until severance of title)