Smith v. Beesley, 226 Ariz. 313

Drainage easement runs under Kohl's Tonto Creek Ranch subdivision; Beesley built a culvert and driveway over the easement in 2005 to access his land.
Plaintiff Smith (landowner next to easement) sued for trespass, nuisance, and unlawful alteration of a watercourse under A.R.S. § 48-3613; sought injunction removing improvements.
Plat shows drainage easements; private roadways and playground reserved for owners; easements for drainage only, not exclusive to public use.
Beesley obtained quitclaim deed to land between lots 56 and 57, including the drainage ravine; Beesley constructed driveway without written authorization from flood control district board.
Trial court found driveway improper (nuisance/remedial concerns) at prelim injunction stage; later trial found design could drain properly but upheld original interference with easement; court refused mandatory removal relief and awarded Beesley attorney fees.
Appellate court reverses on § 48-3613 claim requiring removal and remands for mandatory relief and fee reconsideration; other aspects of judgment affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Beesley had a right to enter and alter the drainage easement land	Smith contends easement is exclusive for drainage and precludes Beesley's use as a driveway	Beesley argues easement allows compatible uses, including driveway access	Beesley could enter and alter if compatible with drainage use; easement not exclusive
Whether the court erred by not issuing a final mandatory injunction under § 48-3613(D)	Smith seeks removal of roadway as mandatory relief	Beesley lacked authorization and the district would not regulate such small watersheds	Court erred; § 48-3613(D) requires removal/restoration; remand for mandatory relief
Whether attorney fees should be awarded to Smith or Beesley under § 48-3613 or other authorities	Smith prevailed on statutory claim and seeks fee recovery	Beesley argues fee shift rules do not favor Smith; amount appropriately discretionary	Remand for fee determination under § 48-3613; Smith not categorically entitled to fee under statute; appellate fee issues denied for lack of proper basis
Whether the trial court erred in its interpretation of the plat and dedication (title to drainage land)	Plat created exclusive public dedication; title to drainage land passed to county	Plat did not express exclusive dedication; original developer retained title	Plat not an exclusive dedication; title retained by developer; drainage easement retained as easement

Bijou Irrigation Dist. v. Empire Club, 804 P.2d 175 (Colo. 1991) (exclusive easement not implied unless expressly stated)
Kadlec v. Dorsey, 233 P.3d 1130 (Ariz. 2010) (dedication depends on owner's intent, not automatic)
Allied American Inv. Co. v. Pettit, 179 P.2d 437 (Ariz. 1947) (dedication can transfer title when statute contemplates conveyance)
City of Tempe v. Outdoor Sys., Inc., 32 P.3d 31 (Ariz. 2001) (ordinances harmonized with state law; avoid conflicts)
City of Flagstaff v. Babbitt, 443 P.2d 938 (Ariz. App. 1968) (evidence of dedication defenses; factual questions for trier)
Yount v. Owen, 198 So.2d 360 (Fla. Ct. App. 1967) (drainage easement may coexist with other uses)
Wilson v. Owen, 261 S.W.2d 19 (Mo. 1953) (extrinsic evidence permissible to interpret plat where ambiguity exists)