Wagner v. Crossland Construction Company, Inc.
2013 N.D. LEXIS 223
| N.D. | 2013Background
- Wagner owns land in Williams County and the 1981 warranty deed states the property is subject to a road easement on the North 40.00 feet.
- Wagner acquired the property via a 2009 deed noting subject to prior exceptions, easements, restrictions and rights-of-way of record.
- Baker owns adjacent land north of Wagner; M & K owns land east of Wagner; Titan owns land east of Baker.
- Before 2011, a two-track dirt trail ran along the northern boundary of Wagner’s property; in 2011 Baker hired Crossland to build a road within the 40-foot strips on Wagner’s and Baker’s land.
- Baker, M & K, and Titan use the road (Commercial Drive) for industrial and commercial purposes.
- Wagner sued in December 2011 for damages, trespass, negligence, and sought injunctive relief; defendants claimed the actions occurred within a roadway easement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does the 1981 warranty deed create an express roadway easement? | Wagner argues the language expresses an easement burden on his land. | Crossland, Baker, M & K, Titan contend the deed language reserves/creates a roadway easement. | No express easement created. |
| Is there an implied roadway easement burdening Wagner's land? | Implied easement may exist by historical use or necessity. | There is implied easement by common-law dedication, prescription, or necessity. | Implied easement existence cannot be resolved on summary judgment; genuine issues of material fact remain. |
Key Cases Cited
- Waldock v. Amber Harvest Corp., 2012 ND 180 (ND) (deed interpretation governs intent; four-corners approach)
- Monson v. Dwyer, 378 N.W.2d 865 (ND 1985) ("subject to" generally means subordinate, not a reservation)
- Stracka v. Peterson, 377 N.W.2d 580 (ND 1985) ("subject to" language not a reservation)
- Niles v. Eldridge, 2013 ND 52 (ND) (outlines easement definitions and creation by implication)
- Riverwood Commercial Park, LLC v. Standard Oil Co., Inc., 2005 ND 118 (ND) (easement and use implications in commercial context)
- Mougey Farms v. Kaspari, 1998 ND 118 (ND) (implied easements related to access and necessity)
- Home of Economy v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe R.R., 2007 ND 127 (ND) (prescription burden requires clear evidence of adverse public use)
- Berger v. Berger, 88 N.W.2d 98 (ND) (prescription/easement doctrines guidance)
- Gajewski v. Taylor, 536 N.W.2d 360 (ND) (preservation of factual vs. legal questions in easement inquiry)