Thornock v. Esterholdt, 299 P.3d 68

Thornocks sue to quiet title to an 80×617 foot strip between the Esterholdts’ land and railroad/right‑of‑way in Lincoln County, Wyoming.
The district court granted summary judgment to Thornocks on other land but not for the disputed strip; bench trial followed and title was quieted in Esterholdts for the strip.
Historical deeds show the strip was carved from Roberts’ east-of-railroad land to the Stoner Brothers west-of-railroad land, without explicit easement language in initial conveyances.
A 1946 deed from the Stoner Widows to Noblitt described the strip as a “right of way to be used in connection with said land,” creating the central interpretive issue.
Subsequent deeds referenced the strip as a right‑of‑way, but many transfers described it as fee simple land, not as an easement, and no clear intent to create an appurtenant easement was shown.
The district court held the language ambiguous and unenforceable as an easement; the Supreme Court affirmed, concluding no appurtenant easement was created.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the Stoner Widows’ deed create an appurtenant easement?	Thornocks contend the phrase denotes an easement appurtenant to western lands.	Esterholdts argue it is a fee simple conveyance with no easement.	No appurtenant easement; language ambiguous and insufficient to create one.
Did Noblitt to Igo conveyance create an appurtenant easement?	Thornocks rely on the Noblitt deed’s language linking the strip to the western lands via a right‑of‑way.	Esterholdts contend the language again fails to show an easement and supports fee simple transfer.	No appurtenant easement; language weaker than the earlier deed and still ambiguous.

Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850 (Wyo. 1996) (interpretation of easement language; exclusion of ambiguity)
Steil v. Smith, 901 P.2d 395 (Wyo. 1995) (intention ascertained from language in deeds)
Glover v. Giraldo, 824 P.2d 552 (Wyo. 1992) (interpretation of conveyances; intention govern civil property interests)
Mueller v. Hoblyn, 887 P.2d 500 (Wyo. 1994) (foundational approach to review of findings and intent)
Hasvold v. Park Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 6, 2002 WY 65 (Wyo. 2002) (definition of easement; rights of passage)
Hopper v. All Pet Animal Clinic, Inc., 861 P.2d 531 (Wyo. 1993) (clear error standard for findings of fact)
Powder River Oil Co. v. Powder River Petroleum Corp., 830 P.2d 403 (Wyo. 1992) (deference to district court’s legal conclusions)
Collins v. Finnell, 2001 WY 74 (Wyo. 2001) (evidence of intent in deeds and conduct governs)
Davidson Land Co., LLC v. Davidson, 247 P.3d 67 (Wyo. 2011) (treats right-of-way as potentially fee or easement depending on language)