Paul A. Hinshaw v. M-C-M Properties, LLC
450 S.W.3d 823
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- 1924 deed granted Naylor (and his heirs/assigns) an easement "to lay, maintain and operate a sewer together with the right of ingress and egress on and over and through" a described tract now 1407 Ross (servient); Naylor's parcel is 1403 Ross (dominant).
- Naylor's successor Hinshaw acquired 1403 Ross in 2000; M-C-M acquired 1407 Ross in 1998 subject to easements of record.
- A U-shaped driveway partly lies on 1407 Ross; Hinshaw used that portion for vehicle access since 2000. M-C-M installed a fence in 2010 blocking that use.
- Hinshaw sued for interference with easement and injunctive relief (alternatively adverse possession); M-C-M counterclaimed for ejectment/quiet title. The trial court held the deed granted two independent easements (sewer and general ingress/egress) and enjoined M-C-M from blocking access.
- On appeal, the court considered whether the phrase "together with" creates a separate, general ingress-and-egress easement or a secondary, limited ingress-and-egress easement incidental to the sewer; and whether the easement location was fixed.
Issues
| Issue | Hinshaw's Argument | M-C-M's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the deed grant a separate general ingress-and-egress easement or a limited, ancillary ingress right related to the sewer? | The phrase "together with" creates an independent ingress-and-egress easement over 1407 Ross permitting general access. | "Together with" indicates ingress is incidental to the sewer easement — access only as necessary to lay/maintain/operate the sewer. | The deed grants two easements, but the ingress-and-egress easement is secondary and limited to access reasonably necessary to service the sewer. |
| Is the deed ambiguous such that extrinsic evidence may be considered? | (Implied) The wording supports a broad reading; trial court found unambiguous in Hinshaw's favor. | The phrase is susceptible of more than one meaning and should be construed as incidental. | The court found the deed unambiguous and interpreted intent from the instrument: "together with" indicates related (not independent) easements. |
| Must the court fix the physical location of the ingress-and-egress easement now? | The trial court's injunction effectively allowed use of the entire servient tract (driveway); Hinshaw relied on historic use. | A blanket easement over the whole tract creates a cloud on title; location must be fixed to limit servient-owner burden. | The location was not fixed in 1924; because the secondary ingress easement is limited to servicing the sewer, the court must remand to determine the sewer's location and then fix the corresponding limited access route. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. 1976) (standard of review for court-tried cases)
- Erwin v. City of Palmyra, 119 S.W.3d 582 (Mo. App. 2003) (deed interpretation is question of law; consider instrument first)
- Williams Pipeline Co. v. Allison & Alexander, Inc., 80 S.W.3d 829 (Mo. App. 2002) (utility easement with concurrent right of ingress-and-egress interpreted as ancillary access necessary to service line)
- State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Southern Dev. Co., 509 S.W.2d 18 (Mo. 1974) (secondary ingress for repairs is limited and must be exercised reasonably)
- Beery v. Shinkle, 193 S.W.3d 435 (Mo. App. 2006) (location of unlocated easement may be fixed later by agreement or prior use)
- DeRossett v. Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 698 S.E.2d 455 (N.C. Ct. App. 2010) ("together with" can create two easements but ingress rights are limited to appropriate purposes related to the primary easement)
- Reinbott v. Tidwell, 191 S.W.3d 102 (Mo. App. 2006) (easement use limited to what is reasonably necessary for enjoyment of servitude)