Woods v. Shannon, 344 P.3d 413

Woodses own Lot 13; Shannon owns adjacent Lot 12. A 1978 written easement on the NW corner of Lot 13 grants a 40-foot-wide road easement for "ingress and egress" to Lot 12.
Woodses purchased Lot 13 in 2007 and allege they were not informed of the easement; they claim it was never used until Shannon began clearing vegetation and preparing a driveway in 2013.
Woodses filed a pro se petition for injunctive relief (Oct. 31, 2013) seeking to enjoin Shannon’s use of the easement, arguing it was created by necessity and should be extinguished or limited.
Shannon moved to dismiss under M. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing the easement is an express grant with clear, unambiguous terms allowing ingress and egress.
District Court granted the motion to dismiss, holding the easement was an express grant; its terms were specific so parol or extrinsic evidence and claims of nonuse/necessity could not limit it.
On appeal the Montana Supreme Court affirmed, finding the Woodses failed to plead facts showing abandonment or overburdening of the servient estate and that the pleaded allegations were speculative.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Nature of easement	Easement was created by necessity and should be extinguished	Easement is written—an express grant—so not a necessity easement	Court: Written instrument creates an express easement, not implied by necessity
Scope of easement	"Ingress and egress" is ambiguous; court should consider extrinsic evidence and limit use	Grant language is specific; scope determined by terms of the grant	Court: Language is sufficiently specific; scope determined by grant; extrinsic evidence excluded
Permitted users and uses	Limit use (e.g., restrict types of users/vehicles) to prevent harm	Express ingress/egress allows holder, family, tenants, invitees and reasonable repairs/maintenance	Court: Holder may use for ingress/egress, including family/guests/maintenance, unless use overburdens servient estate
Abandonment/nonuse	Easement abandoned by long nonuse and because Lot 12 now has other access	Mere nonuse does not prove abandonment; no other facts alleging intent to abandon	Court: Nonuse alone insufficient; Woodses pleaded no facts showing abandonment

Blazer v. Wall, 183 P.3d 84 (Mont. 2008) (distinguishes express vs. implied easements and treatment of written grants)
Clark v. Pennock, 239 P.3d 922 (Mont. 2010) (where grant is specific, scope is strictly determined by the grant)
Mason v. Garrison, 998 P.2d 531 (Mont. 2000) (ingress-and-egress grants create road easements with scope governed by grant)
McCauley v. Thompson-Nistler, 10 P.3d 794 (Mont. 2000) (court erred by limiting an unrestricted ingress-and-egress grant based on presumed residential uses)
Guthrie v. Hardy, 28 P.3d 467 (Mont. 2001) (easement holder has right and duty to maintain and repair the easement)
Pearson v. Virginia City Ranches Assn., 993 P.2d 688 (Mont. 2000) (mere nonuse does not establish abandonment of an express easement)