814 N.W.2d 131
S.D.2012Background
- Springers own a forty-acre east parcel; Cahoy owns a forty-acre west parcel adjacent to it.
- From 1947-1967 the parcels were unitary and treated as one tract under Harrington.
- In 1967 Harrington conveyed east parcel to George Harrington and west parcel to Lylia McClung; subsequent transfers left Cahoy with west parcel and Springers with east parcel.
- From 1967-2007 the parcels were owned separately but operated as a single unit and shared access.
- After Springers bought their parcel (2008) and Cahoy bought his (2007), the east parcel lost direct access to a public road.
- Springers used Cahoy’s parcel to reach their property; Cahoy erected no trespass signs in 2008 and later locked gates in 2009, prompting suit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an easement implied from prior use exists | Springers contend prior use established a permanent easement. | Cahoy argues no clear and convincing evidence of an apparent servitude at severance. | No, easement implied from prior use does not exist. |
Key Cases Cited
- Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC, 2003 S.D. 12, 657 N.W.2d 300 (S.D. 2003) (establishes four-element test for implied easements by prior use)
- Wiege v. Knock, 293 N.W.2d 146 (S.D. 1980) (requires apparent permanent and obvious servitude for implied easement)
- Townsend v. Yankton Super 8 Motel, Inc., 371 N.W.2d 162 (S.D. 1985) (where transfer of part of land implies visible easements benefitting the retained part)