William S. Hansuld and Tia J. Hansuld
2015 WY 12
| Wyo. | 2015Background
- Lariat Diesel Corp. and Piel seek an implied access easement across Hansuld property; district court located it using floating easement logic, which Hansulds challenge, but court’s ultimate ruling favors Lariat.
- Prior to severance, common owner used part of property for the benefit of the other, creating implied easement rights recognized in prior Hansuld decisions.
- An Access Agreement from 1996 granted Lariat an easement over the southerly 100 feet of the Hansulds’ property, but it was not recorded in the chain of title.
- Hansulds acquired the Hansulds’ property in 2001; after years of dispute, this is the third appeal, with Hansuld I recognizing an implied easement and Hansuld II addressing location.
- On remand, district court held a bench trial, considered the Access Agreement, historical truck use, and expert and lay testimony to determine location.
- Court ultimately approved a pathway broader than the curb-cut but narrowed by historic use, finding this best reflected the parties’ intent and use.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of an implied easement requirement | Lariat: implied easement exists and was valid. | Hansulds: contested feasibility and need for implied easement. | Implied easement exists; standing law of case supports it. |
| Legal standard for locating implied easement | District court correctly focused on parties’ intent and use, despite floating-easement language. | Court relied on floating-easement framework instead of implied-easement standard. | Court’s reasoning centered on intent; mislabeling as floating easement did not alter result. |
| Proper location of the implied easement | Proposed full 100-foot easement or broad access reflecting typical truck patterns. | Limit easement to narrower path consistent with historic, smaller-truck use and signs. | District court’s chosen pathway reflects historical use and overall intent; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 81 P.3d 215 (Wy. 2003) (implied easement exists; location determined on remand)
- Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 245 P.3d 293 (Wy. 2010) (law of the case; location of implied easement remanded)
- Brumbaugh v. Mikelson Land Co., 185 P.3d 695 (Wy. 2008) (floating easement context; location not initially specified)
- Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power and Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850 (Wy. 1996) (definition and treatment of floating easements)
- Gray v. Norwest Bank Wyoming, N.A., 984 P.2d 1088 (Wy. 1999) (implied easement analysis; location considerations)
- Morris v. CMS Oil & Gas Co., 227 P.3d 325 (Wy. 2010) (benches and standard for reviewing factual findings)
- Lieberman v. Mossbrook, 208 P.3d 1296 (Wy. 2009) (standard of review; deference to trial-court findings)
- Windsor Energy Group, LLC v. Noble Energy, Inc., 330 P.3d 285 (Wy. 2014) (standard of review; implications for contract interpretation)
- Triton Coal Co. v. Husman, Inc., 846 P.2d 664 (Wy. 1993) (law-of-case principles in Wyoming appellate practice)