Statewide Construction, Inc. v. Pietri
150 Idaho 423
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Statewide owns Parcel 1 (≈15.18 acres) with seven adjacent parcels holding express easements over Parcel 1 for ingress/egress.
- Statewide obtained a Conditional Use Permit to develop a subdivision and constructed a New Easement (≥70 feet wide) to replace the Original Easement used by Appellants.
- Statewide intended relocation of the easement to the New Easement location; Appellants did not consent to relocation.
- Statewide sued in a declaratory judgment to determine whether it could relocate the easement unilaterally under I.C. § 55-313.
- District court granted summary judgment for Statewide; Appellants appealed challenging the statute, takings/due process, and injury issues.
- Court affirms the district court’s grant of summary judgment, holding I.C. § 55-313 permits unilateral relocation absent consent and does not trigger a taking or injury under the statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does I.C. § 55-313 permit relocation of an access road even when it enters a public roadway? | Pietri et al. contend the intent/history excludes roads entering public highways. | Statewide argues the statute is clear and unambiguous. | Yes; §55-313 allows relocation regardless of entry onto public road. |
| May a servient estate relocate an express easement without the dominant estate's consent? | Appellants claim relocation without consent constitutes per se injury. | Statewide asserts no consent required if relocation does not obstruct or injure users. | Yes; relocation is permissible without consent if no obstruction or injury results. |
| Is relocation a taking under the Fifth Amendment or Idaho Constitution, requiring compensation? | Relocation amounts to a taking without just compensation. | Statutory relocation ensures no taking because it preserves access and use. | No; relocation is not a taking and no compensation mechanism is needed. |
| Are there genuine issues of material fact about injuries to appellants from relocation under § 55-313? | Relocation results in safety, contract and visibility injuries. | No material injury under § 55-313; alleged harms are incidental or unrelated to easement purpose. | No genuine issues; relocation does not injure appellants under § 55-313. |
| Did the district court err in granting summary judgment given appeals on statute interpretation and injuries? | Appellants contend factual and interpretive disputes remain. | Statutory interpretation resolves the issues; no triable facts remain. | Yes; the district court properly granted summary judgment for Statewide. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Sun Valley v. Sun Valley Co., 851 P.2d 961 (Idaho 1993) (when statute is unambiguous, legislative history not consulted to alter text)
- Benninger v. Derifield, 129 P.3d 1235 (Idaho 2006) (preserves discussion though issue not raised on appeal)
- Villager Condominium Ass'n v. Idaho Power Co., 829 P.2d 1335 (Idaho 1992) (dominant estate relocation context; distinguishable facts)
- Turner v. Cold Springs Canyon Ltd. Partnership, 141 P.3d 1096 (Idaho 2006) (dicta on relocation; issue not properly raised on appeal)
- Simonson v. Moon, 237 P.2d 93 (Idaho 1951) (injury definition under former §42-1207; burden on servient estate)
- Savage Lateral Ditch Water Users Ass'n v. Pulley, 869 P.2d 554 (Idaho 1993) (injury when relocation imposes burden continuing; rotation/use impact)
- Moon v. Bullock, 151 P.2d 765 (Idaho 1944) (common law evolution; changing rules by statute)
- Mutual of Enumclaw Insurance, Co. v. Pedersen, 983 P.2d 208 (Idaho 1999) (summary judgment standard in declaratory actions)