Straumann v. Massey
34,026
N.M. Ct. App.Jun 29, 2017Background
- Six lots were created from a 14.152-acre tract; each lot deed reserved a five‑foot irrigation ditch easement along their northern boundary to convey water from a community ditch.
- Straumann owns Lot 2 (northwest) and an adjacent Lot 1 (not part of the original tract); he never constructed a continuous ditch in the five‑foot easement but placed berms and used the larger parcel for grazing historically.
- Defendants (Massey, Richey, et al.) erected a pipe fence along their northern property lines in 2010; the fence encroaches on the five‑foot easement.
- District court found the five‑foot express easement exists, found no historic use of the easement as an earthen ditch, found the fence interfered with use, and entered a permanent injunction ordering removal of any structures in the easement and limiting permissible structures to an earthen or concrete ditch.
- Court of Appeals affirmed the easement declaration and denial of malicious abuse of process damages but reversed the portion of the injunction requiring removal of the existing fence, holding the district court abused its discretion because Straumann failed to show irreparable harm and the easement was not suitable for a ditch as required by the injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether fence must be removed as injunction enforcing easement | Straumann: fence interferes with his right to create/use/maintain a dirt or concrete ditch within the five‑foot easement; removal restores easement use | Defendants: easement has never functioned as a ditch; fence is reasonable to prevent trespass and removal imposes hardship; injunction unnecessary | Court of Appeals: reversed removal order — Straumann failed to show irreparable harm and five‑foot easement is unsuitable for a ditch, so removal was an abuse of discretion |
| Scope of permissible use within easement (earthen/concrete ditch only) | Straumann: easement entitles him to creation/use/maintenance of a dirt or concrete ditch within five feet | Defendants: five feet is inadequate for earthen/concrete ditch; alternative methods (pipeline) should be permitted | Court: questioned district court’s restriction to earthen/concrete ditch because evidence showed five feet inadequate; remanded for further proceedings as needed |
| Malicious abuse of process counterclaim damages | N/A (Defendants asserted counterclaim) | Defendants: Straumann lacked probable cause and misused process, so they are entitled to damages | Court: affirmed denial of damages — no manifest lack of probable cause shown; existence of easement and contested facts supported filing the suit |
| Whether district court abused discretion by issuing injunction absent balancing of hardships | Straumann: injunction proper to protect easement rights | Defendants: court failed to properly balance equities and consider lack of historic ditch use and cost/hardship of fence removal | Court: agreed with Defendants as to removal order — district court did not adequately find irreparable harm or balance hardships, so removal requirement reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Amkco, Ltd. v. Welborn, 130 N.M. 155, 21 P.3d 24 (2001) (establishes two‑part test for injunctions removing encroachments: irreparable harm then balancing of hardships)
- Insure N.M., LLC v. McGonigle, 128 N.M. 611, 995 P.2d 1053 (2000) (injunctive relief is equitable and reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Sims v. Sims, 122 N.M. 618, 930 P.2d 153 (1996) (standard for abuse of discretion described)
- Durham v. Guest, 145 N.M. 694, 204 P.3d 19 (2009) (elements and standards for malicious abuse of process)
- Fleetwood Retail Corp. of N.M. v. LeDoux, 142 N.M. 150, 164 P.3d 31 (2007) (probable cause for filing suit evaluated for malicious abuse of process claims)