Scalia v. Green
271 P.3d 479
Ariz. Ct. App.2011Background
- Scalias own lots 233 and 235; Greens own 210, 211, 212.
- 1987 non-exclusive easement across 210–212 for ingress/egress/utilities benefiting 210 and 233; terminates at Thumb Butte Road.
- 2000 exclusive easement for ingress/egress/utilities for lot 233; extends from NW corner of 233 to Thumb Butte Road; adjacent to 1987 easement.
- 2003 non-exclusive easement granting rights over portions of the 2000 easement to lot 210; coextensive in part with the 2000 easement.
- Superior Court granted summary judgment quieting title to the 1987 easement and the 2000 easement in favor of Scalias; enjoined Greens from using the 2003 easement; awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
- Greens appeal arguing abandonment of the 1987 easement and issues concerning the 2000/2003 easements; this Court affirms in part and remands for the 2003 easement issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 1987 easement was abandoned | Greens argue abandonment by Scalias’ use of the 2000 easement. | Scalias never evidenced an unequivocal intent to abandon 1987. | No abandonment; summary judgment proper. |
| Validity and exclusivity of 2000 easement and impact on 2003 easement | Greens contend 2003 easement cannot exceed exclusivity of 2000. | 2000 easement is exclusive to 233; 2003 easement cannot encroach. | 2003 easement void to Greens beyond coextensive scope; remand to adjust order. |
| Equitable considerations requiring denial of relief | Sealias allegedly harmed Greens’ estate; equitable concerns override. | Equitable concerns do not defeat established easement rights. | No equitable defeat of easement rights; not dispositive. |
| Attorney’s fees awarded on appeal | No abuse of discretion; fees affirmed and awards on appeal permitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Etz v. Mamerow, 72 Ariz. 228 (Arizona 1951) (definition of easement and rights; use subject to servitude)
- Siler v. Arizona Department of Real Estate, 193 Ariz. 374 (Arizona 1998) (easement runs with the land; standards for abandonment not met by mere non-use)
- Smith v. Muellner, 283 Conn. 510 (Conn. 2007) (non-use alone does not prove intent to abandon; need unequivocal acts)
- Mueller v. Bohannon, 589 N.W.2d 852 (Neb. 1999) (non-use by grantant insufficient to extinguish right absent clearer intent)
- Moyer v. Martin, 101 W.Va. 19; 131 S.E. 859 (W.Va. 1926) (nonuse of easement does not extinguish right absent statute or grant terms)
- Long v. City of Glendale, 208 Ariz. 319 (Arizona App. 2004) (contract interpretation; four-corners rule for unambiguous deeds)
- Spurlock v. Santa Fe Pacific R.R. Co., 143 Ariz. 469 (Arizona App. 1984) (contract construction in easement deeds)
- Gray v. McCormick, 167 Cal.App.4th 1019 (Cal. Dist. Ct. App. 2008) (exclusive easement scope includes right to exclude others)