Roland v. Davis
2013 MT 148
| Mont. | 2013Background
- Roland bought a 50-acre parcel in 1993; deed contains no express water rights or ditch easements.
- Roland believed a water right from Bunkhouse Creek and a Smith Ditch easement existed to his parcel, supported by a water-right transfer certificate.
- Davis purchased adjacent land from Russ in 1994; no water rights attached to Davis’s property.
- 1958 Water Resources Survey shows Smith Ditch from Bunkhouse Creek to Roland’s parcel; over time the route crosses Davis property and Roland’s parcel.
- A roadway system constructed before 1979 across both properties blocked use of Smith Ditch; some remnants of the ditch were visible only after tree thinning in the mid-2000s.
- District Court found Roland had no ditch easement across Davis’s property; Roland appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roland has a ditch easement across Davis property | Roland argues implied easement by prior use and continuity exists. | Davis contends no continuous or apparent use, and roadway blocks and pre-1979 abandonment negate easement. | No implied easement; affirmed. |
| Whether transfer of land included an implied ditch easement by operation of law | Water rights pass with land and may imply a ditch easement. | Water rights and ditch easements are separate; no implied easement arose from transfer. | No implied easement established; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Chilcott, 182 Mont. 511, 597 P.2d 1140 (Mont. 1979) (water rights pass with land when not expressly reserved)
- Hoyem Trust v. Galt, 1998 MT 300, 292 Mont. 56, 968 P.2d 1135 (Mont. 1998) (implied easement requires apparent and continuous use)
- Shammel v. Vogl, 144 Mont. 354, 396 P.2d 103 (Mont. 1964) (abandonment requires act and intent; mere nonuse is insufficient)
- Burleson v. Kinsey-Cartwright, 2000 MT 278, 302 Mont. 141, 13 P.3d 384 (Mont. 2000) (subject-to notice deeds require on-site or plat evidence of easements)
- Connolly v. Harrel, 102 Mont. 295, 57 P.2d 781 (Mont. 1936) (water rights and ditch rights are distinct property interests)
- Mildenberger v. Galbraith, 249 Mont. 161, 815 P.2d 130 (Mont. 1991) (water rights and ditch rights are separate and may coexist)