VanBuskirk v. Gehlen
2017 MT 119N
| Mont. | 2017Background
- In 1976 Certificate of Survey #440093 created a 21-acre parcel later owned by the VanBuskirks' predecessors; access to that parcel depended on a track called Northern Loop Road crossing land now owned by the Gehlens.
- Prior litigation: in 1980 the VanBuskirks' predecessors failed to establish a prescriptive easement; in 1982 they sued for a right-of-way by necessity.
- Parties settled and filed a February 23, 1987 Stipulation (recorded) granting a "right to use the path" described in an attached Exhibit C (a metes-and-bounds centerline and a map) with limits "at all times which do not interfere with the farming operation . . . or whenever necessary." The district court dismissed the prior action based on the Stipulation.
- Current suit: VanBuskirks sought declaration/enforcement of the 1987 easement and injunctive relief to prevent the Gehlens (trustees) from interfering with use; the district court granted summary judgment to VanBuskirks, entered a permanent injunction, and awarded attorney fees.
- District court alternatively found a prescriptive easement, but the ruling on the recorded Stipulation-created easement was dispositive.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 1987 Stipulation created an easement appurtenant | Stipulation + Exhibit C identifies a "path" by legal description and map that serves the VanBuskirk parcel; thus it created an easement | Stipulation did not create an easement right to construct/maintain a road across defendants' land | Court: Affirmed — the 1987 Stipulation (with Exhibit C) created an easement appurtenant serving COS #440093 and burdening Gehlens' land |
| Whether the easement description sufficiently identifies dominant and servient tenements | Easement description begins at NW corner of COS #440093 and ends at US Hwy 2, so dominant and servient tenements are determinable | Opposed ambiguity prevents creation of an easement | Court: Held the description and map made both tenements determinable; easement appurtenant exists |
| Whether the easement allowed building up the road (scope of use) | VanBuskirk sought to use the path as provided in the Stipulation (subject to farming operations) | Gehlens argued Stipulation did not authorize constructing/‘building up’ a road across their property | Court: Limited scope — easement permits use described in Stipulation but does not authorize unrestricted road construction beyond that description |
| Whether attorney fees were properly awarded | VanBuskirks sought fees under applicable statutes and as supplemental relief via the Declaratory Judgment Act | Gehlens argued statutory basis cited was inapplicable to nonpossessory easement claim | Court: Fees under §27-1-316(c) MCA were inapplicable, but district court properly awarded attorney fees as supplemental relief under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act |
Key Cases Cited
- Pilgeram v. GreenPoint Mortg. Funding, Inc., 373 Mont. 1, 313 P.3d 839 (discussing de novo review of summary judgment and standards)
- Blazer v. Wall, 343 Mont. 173, 183 P.3d 84 (definition and requirements of an easement appurtenant)
- James v. Chicago Title Ins. Co., 377 Mont. 264, 339 P.3d 420 (a document creating an easement may reference another document for description)
- Broadwater Dev., L.L.C. v. Nelson, 352 Mont. 401, 219 P.3d 492 (contract interpretation governs construction of writings granting interests in land)
- Trs. of Ind. Univ. v. Buxbaum, 315 Mont. 210, 69 P.3d 663 (attorney fees as supplemental relief under declaratory judgment principles)
- Haggerty v. Gallatin Cty., 221 Mont. 109, 717 P.2d 550 (precedent declining fee awards under §27-1-316(c) in certain contexts)
- Stevenson v. Ecklund, 263 Mont. 61, 865 P.2d 296 (similar refusal to award fees under §27-1-316(c))