VanMatre v. Davenport
2017 Ark. App. 703
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellees Larry and Jason Davenport held a deeded "permanent and exclusive 25-foot" easement for ingress/egress and utilities across appellants Robert and Tina VanMatre's land.
- A fence had been erected along the easement by a predecessor (Halliday) to keep adjacent landowner Killebrew’s cattle out; the fence remained when Davenports purchased.
- Appellants removed the fence; Davenports sued for injunctive relief and sought restoration of the fence.
- Trial court granted the injunction, found the easement exclusive, ordered appellants to restore the fence within 45 days, and allowed limited access to do so.
- VanMatres appealed; the appellate court reviewed whether the deed created an exclusive easement and whether appellants must restore the fence.
- Court reversed the exclusivity ruling, holding the easement was limited to ingress/egress and utilities and did not exclude the servient owner from compatible uses; remanded to reconsider fence-restoration liability in light of that holding.
Issues
| Issue | Davenport's Argument | VanMatre's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the deed’s language created an exclusive easement that excludes the servient owner | The deed’s "permanent and exclusive" language grants an exclusive easement to Davenports | The servient owner may use the easement area so long as use does not interfere with the easement’s purpose (ingress/egress & utilities) | Reversed: despite the word "exclusive," the limited purpose (ingress/egress & utilities) shows no intent to exclude servient owner; servient owner may use area compatibly |
| Whether appellants must restore the removed fence | Davenports sought restoration as remedy for fence removal and future interference risk | VanMatres argued they could use the easement area and had not interfered with easement use | Remanded: trial court erred on exclusivity; fence-restoration responsibility must be reconsidered under correct legal standard (compatibility/noninterference) |
Key Cases Cited
- Howard v. Cramlet, 56 Ark. App. 171, 939 S.W.2d 858 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997) (owner of servient estate may make uses consistent with easement; servient use allowed if it does not interfere with easement).
- Barton Land Servs., Inc. v. SEECO, Inc., 428 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. 2013) (deed construction focuses on grantor’s intent and the instrument’s four corners).
- Gibson v. Pickett, 256 Ark. 1035, 512 S.W.2d 532 (Ark. 1974) (intention of parties is gathered from whole deed; reconcile all parts).
- Natural Gas Pipeline Co. of Am. v. Cox, 490 F. Supp. 452 (E.D. Ark. 1980) (easement-holder’s uses limited to authorized purposes; servient owner retains noninterfering uses).