Reeves v. Godspeed Props., LLC
426 P.3d 845
Alaska2018Background
- In 1986 Alaska Gold reserved a 100-foot easement across MS-1724; the reservation language was held to create an easement appurtenant benefiting Alaska Gold’s adjacent parcel MS-1709.
- Alaska Gold sold MS-1724 to Alice (later Ellingson); she and Harold built and operated a substantial gold processing plant on MS-1724 from ~1988–2002, with foundations and equipment located within the easement corridor.
- Reeves (later dominant-owner successor) used and later planned to dedicate the easement for public subdivision access; Godspeed acquired MS-1724 in 2009.
- Godspeed blocked the easement with a gravel berm; litigation over validity and extinguishment followed.
- The superior court found the 1986 deed created an easement and that the entire easement had been extinguished by prescription; the Alaska Supreme Court affirmed creation of an appurtenant easement but held only the portion occupied by the permanent gold plant was prescriptively extinguished and remanded to determine its extent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Godspeed) | Defendant's Argument (Reeves) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1986 deed created a valid easement and whether it was appurtenant or in gross | Easement language ambiguous (uses term "dedicatable") and unclear who benefits; argue no appurtenant easement | Deed reserved ingress/egress for grantor and successors to reach other Alaska Gold lands—intended to benefit MS-1709 | Deed valid; "dedicatable" construed as drafting quirk; evidence supports an easement appurtenant benefiting MS-1709 (affirmed) |
| Whether the easement was entirely extinguished by prescription | Long, continuous mining activity (plant, berms, piles, equipment) unreasonably interfered with easement use for >10 years —so prescriptive extinguishment | Plant did not unreasonably interfere with current/prospective use for full 10 years; much activity was temporary and movable; full extinguishment not shown | Partial prescription recognized; only the permanent gold plant portion (continuous, concrete/steel structure in place >10 years) extinguished that portion; remainder not shown to have been continuously and adversely occupied for the prescriptive period (reversed as to full extinguishment; remanded to quantify occupied area) |
| Whether Alaska recognizes partial extinguishment by prescription | N/A (argues for full extinguishment) | N/A (argues against full extinguishment) | Alaska adopts partial extinguishment: an easement may be partially extinguished by prescription under Hansen standard (affirmed as available doctrine) |
| Sufficiency of evidence about extent of occupation by plant | Photographs and testimony show plant occupied roughly half the easement, justifying terminating most or all of easement | Argued photos did not definitively show plant crossed critical road alignment; many obstructions were temporary/moveable | Trial court’s finding that plant blocked half the easement was clearly erroneous based on offered photos; remand required to determine exact area occupied by permanent structure |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansen v. Davis, 220 P.3d 911 (Alaska 2009) (established standards for extinguishment of easements by prescription; prescriptive period triggered when servient use "unreasonably interferes" with current or prospective use)
- HP Ltd. P'ship v. Kenai River Airpark, LLC, 270 P.3d 719 (Alaska 2012) (deed-ambiguity and mixed question standards cited)
- Price v. Eastham, 75 P.3d 1051 (Alaska 2003) (due-process/notice principle: courts should not decide novel legal theories without giving parties opportunity to be heard)
- Norken Corp. v. McGahan, 823 P.2d 622 (Alaska 1991) (deed interpretation principles)
- Estate of Smith v. Spinelli, 216 P.3d 524 (Alaska 2009) (deed ambiguity and intent-of-parties rules)