Terry Miner v. Jesse & Grace
2014 WY 17
| Wyo. | 2014Background
- Terry and Colleen Miner bought a portion of Lot 1 (the West Parcel) in Laramie and later discovered the rear of a four-plex at 388 Buchanan encroached ~5 feet onto their parcel along the building’s length (~20% of the building).
- The building was constructed in 2005 by Susan Jaycox when she owned all of Lot 1; Jaycox financed two buildings by carving the lot into North and South Parcels for separate mortgages.
- Mortgages on the North and South Parcels were foreclosed in 2007–2008; the purchasers eventually conveyed the North and South Parcels to two LLCs (common owners). Jaycox retained and later conveyed the remainder (including the West Parcel) before the Miners’ purchase in 2009.
- The Miners sued seeking declaration of ownership of the encroaching portion, ejectment, partition or removal, trespass damages, and a share of rental income; the LLCs counterclaimed for an implied easement and injunctive relief.
- District court granted summary judgment that the Miners do not own any part of the apartment building (the encroachment is not an "improvement" or "appurtenance" to the West Parcel), then after bench trial found an implied easement in favor of the North and South Parcels and enjoined the Miners from interfering with the LLCs’ use. The Miners appealed; this Court affirmed but remanded for a possible clerical correction to the easement description.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Do Miners own the encroaching portion (improvement/appurtenance)? | Miners: the deed conveyed "improvements" and appurtenances to the West Parcel, so the encroaching building passed with their deed. | LLCs: the building was not an improvement/appurtenance to the West Parcel (no intent, use, or adaptation), so title to building did not pass. | Court: Affirmed summary judgment for LLCs — encroaching portion is not an improvement/appurtenance to the West Parcel; Miners hold no title to the building. |
| 2. Was parol or surrounding-circumstances evidence improperly used to interpret the deeds? | Miners: surrounding affidavits (Jaycox) are self-serving and impermissible parol evidence to negate deed language. | LLCs: factual circumstances (construction, staking, use, intent) are admissible to interpret deed and show building wasn’t intended as appurtenance. | Court: Surrounding circumstances evidence properly used; Jaycox affidavits admissible and Miners failed to rebut credibility. |
| 3. Is an implied easement for the building (and setback/parking) established? | Miners: encroachment was not "apparent" and an implied easement should not extend to a building; easement would effect a private taking. | LLCs: elements for implied easement satisfied (common ownership, apparent/continuous use, necessity); easement appropriate and not a taking. | Court: After bench trial, affirmed implied easement — elements met (encroachment apparent to a reasonable inspection, necessity for continued use); not a compensable taking under Wyoming law. |
| 4. Appropriate remedies: ejectment/partition/removal vs. injunction/affirmation of easement | Miners: seek ejectment, partition, removal, trespass damages, share of income. | LLCs: request declaration of easement and injunction precluding Miners’ interference; alternatively deed reformation/quiet title. | Court: Miners’ remedies (ejectment/partition/share of rents) fail because they lack title; injunction granted protecting LLCs’ easement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Covington v. W.R. Grace-Conn., Inc., 952 P.2d 1105 (Wyo. 1998) (definition and scope of "improvement")
- King v. White, 499 P.2d 585 (Wyo. 1972) (definition of "appurtenance")
- Szilagy v. Taylor, 25 N.E.2d 360 (Ohio App. 1939) (encroaching building not an appurtenance when not intended as permanent accession)
- Corbett v. Whitney, 603 P.2d 1291 (Wyo. 1979) (apparent-use standard for implied easements)
- Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 245 P.3d 293 (Wyo. 2010) (doctrine and elements for implied easements)
- In re Estate of Shirran, 987 P.2d 140 (Wyo. 1999) (necessity element for implied easements)
- Bush v. Duff, 754 P.2d 159 (Wyo. 1988) (easement by necessity/common-law way not a compensable taking)