Yellowstone River, LLC v. Meriwether Land Fund I, LLC
2011 MT 263
Mont.2011Background
- YR seeks an easement by necessity to access its Section 22 property across Meriwether lands east of the Yellowstone River.
- The case centers on the historical Northern Pacific checkerboard land grants and the 1864 act mapping odd/even sections.
- Northern Pacific’s title Attached to odd-numbered sections in 1881; Section 22 became landlocked, triggering potential easement by necessity.
- YR traces ownership from 1915–1919 patents to Raymond Becker and Eugene Becker, with later transfers to YR and Meriwether.
- District Court granted summary judgment against YR on easement by necessity; on appeal, court affirms outcome but adjusts reasoning.
- Court concludes unity of title existed at the severance that created necessity, but strict necessity was negated by federal eminent domain power and congressional reservations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether unity of title existed to support easement by necessity | YR argues unity persisted through 1881 and prior to severance. | Meriwether contends unity failed after 1919 due to non-common ownership. | Unity existed; but analysis refined to timing of severance creating necessity. |
| Whether strict necessity existed at severance | YR contends no practical public-road access except across former common land. | Meriwether asserts possibility of condemnation or alternative access negates strict necessity. | Strict necessity exists; however, the government’s eminent domain power undermines it in this case. |
| Whether the federal government’s power to condemn defeats implied easement by necessity | YR suggests no condemnation power defeats necessity. | Meriwether invokes Eminent Domain to negate necessity. | Emminent domain power negates strict necessity; cannot imply easement. |
| What is the proper framing of implied easements in checkerboard federal grant contexts | YR relies on implied-reservation theories to support access. | Meriwether follows Leo Sheep to limit implication absent explicit congressional intent. | Court adopts Leo Sheep approach; cannot imply easement absent stronger congressional intent. |
| Does public policy support imply easements in this federal-land-grant context | YR urges public policy favoring access to landlocked parcels. | Meriwether cautions against broad policy-based easements in checkerboard grants. | Public policy does not create an easement here; relies on intent and statutory context. |
Key Cases Cited
- Leo Sheep Co. v. U.S., 440 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1979) (railroad checkerboard grants—intent and eminent-domain considerations control implied rights)
- St. Paul & Pac. R.R. Co. v. N. Pac. R.R. Co., 139 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1891) (inchoate right to odd-numbered sections; title attaches upon definite route location)
- Frame v. Huber, 2010 MT 71 (Mont. 2010) (unity of title and strict-necessity framework for easements by necessity)
- Murphy v. Burch, 205 P.3d 289 (Cal. 2009) (special considerations for government land patents; burden on government intent)
- Kullick v. Skyline Homeowners Assn., Inc., 69 P.3d 225 (Mont. 2003) (unity of title requirement analyzed in the context of subsequent severances)
- Mont. Wilderness Assn. v. U.S. Forest Serv., 496 F. Supp. 880 (D. Mont. 1980) (Congressional intent and eminent-domain issues in federal land grants)