414 P.3d 1277
Mont.2018Background
- In 1988 four landowners executed a mutual non-exclusive access easement over an "existing trail or roadway" granting ingress and egress "to and from adjoining properties owned by the respective Grantors/Grantees for the purpose of conducting farming and ranching operations and activities."
- Quarter Circle JP Ranch, LLC is successor to two original grantors; Barbara Jerde is successor to one grantor and later moved a trailer onto her parcel (the Jerde Record Property) using the easement and sometimes deviating off the trail onto Quarter Circle land when the trail was impassable.
- Jerde also used the easement to access a contiguous parcel she later contracted to purchase (the Jerde Contract Property), which was not owned by any original signatory in 1988.
- Quarter Circle sued for declaratory relief asserting: (I) improper deviations off the easement onto servient land; (II) improper use to access after-acquired property; and (III) improper residential use not covered by the easement.
- The district court granted summary judgment to Quarter Circle on Counts I and II, denied on Count III, later granted summary judgment to Jerde on Count III; parties cross-appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed Counts I & II but reversed the Count III summary disposition and remanded for trial on scope/intent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an easement granting access "for the purpose of conducting farming and ranching operations and activities" unambiguously includes residential use | Quarter Circle: phrase is not specific; historical use and intent do not contemplate residential use; court must consider extrinsic evidence | Jerde: phrase unambiguously includes living on the ranch as integral to farming/ranching; dictionary definitions support inclusion | Court: Phrase is ambiguous on residence; district court erred treating it as specific and granting summary judgment to Jerde; remand for trial to resolve historical use and intent |
| Whether the easement benefits after-acquired adjacent property (Jerde Contract Property) | Quarter Circle: easement applies only to named grantors/grantees and described lands; no benefit to after-acquired parcel | Jerde: language could be read to allow benefit to lands "owned at any time" by the parties; not automatic but ambiguous | Court: Easement is specific as to parties and described lands; does not include the after-acquired parcel; affirmed district court |
| Whether the record owner of the after-acquired parcel must be joined as a necessary party | Jerde: Donna Riley (record owner) must be joined for complete relief | Quarter Circle: Riley is neither party nor successor-in-interest and is not subject to the easement | Court: District court did not abuse discretion in denying joinder (motion procedurally deficient and Riley not indispensable); affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Mason v. Garrison, 299 Mont. 142, 998 P.2d 531 (Decided 2000) (specific easement terms strictly limit scope)
- Mattson v. Montana Power Co., 352 Mont. 212, 215 P.3d 675 (Decided 2009) (general easement scope determined by necessity, convenience, historic use, and surrounding circumstances)
- Guthrie v. Hardy, 305 Mont. 367, 28 P.3d 467 (Decided 2001) (use beyond that contemplated at creation may not be imposed on servient estate)
- Leffingwell Ranch, Inc. v. Cieri, 276 Mont. 421, 916 P.2d 751 (Decided 1996) (after-acquired adjacent parcel is not automatically benefitted by existing easement)