Anderson v. Stokes

• Decision Date: 11 July 2007
• Docket Number: No. DA 06-0121.,DA 06-0121.
• Citation: Anderson v. Stokes, 2007 MT 166, 163 P.3d 1273, 338 Mont. 118 (Mont. 2007)
• Parties: Douglas Gerald ANDERSON, Ruth M. Anderson as Trustee of the Ruth M. Anderson Living Trust, Davar Gardner and Todd Gardner, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. John STOKES; Z-600, Inc.; and Skyline Broadcasters, Inc., Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

163 P.3d 1273

2007 MT 166

338 Mont. 118

Douglas Gerald ANDERSON, Ruth M. Anderson as Trustee of the Ruth M. Anderson Living Trust, Davar Gardner and Todd Gardner, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v.John STOKES; Z-600, Inc.; and Skyline Broadcasters, Inc., Defendants and Appellants.

No. DA 06-0121.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs November 22, 2006.

Decided July 11, 2007.

For Appellants: Wade J. Dahood, Knight, Dahood, Everett & Sievers, Anaconda, Montana.

For Respondents: James H. Goetz, Trent M. Gardner, Goetz, Gallick & Baldwin, P.C., Bozeman, Montana, David M. Sandler, Bothe & Lauridsen, P.C., Columbia Falls, Montana.

Justice JAMES C. NELSONdelivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1John Stokes, Z-600, Inc., and Skyline Broadcasters, Inc.(collectively, "Stokes") appeal from the District Court for the Eleventh Judicial District, Flathead County, which granted summary judgment in favor of Douglas G. Anderson, Ruth M. Anderson as trustee of The Ruth M. Anderson Living Trust, Davar Gardner, and Todd Gardner(collectively, "the Andersons").We affirm.

¶ 2 The issues on appeal are as follows:

1.Are the Andersons' claims barred on equitable grounds?

2.Did the District Court err in its construction of the instrument by which the Andersons' predecessors in interest granted an easement to Stokes's predecessors in interest?

3.Did the District Court err in ordering Stokes to bury the wires, ground radial antennas, conduits, and transmission lines at issue here to a minimum depth of 12 inches?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 3 Stokes is the owner and operator of radio station KGEZ (also known as "The Edge"), the building housing the station, and the land on which it sits, all of which are located a short distance south of Kalispell, Montana.The Andersons are the owners of adjoining land north, south, and east of the station.The dispute in this case concerns the location and scope of an easement granted by the Andersons' predecessors in interest, J.R. Anderson and Anna G. Anderson("J.R. and Anna"), to Stokes's predecessor in interest and then-owner of KGEZ, Donald C. Treloar("Treloar").

¶ 4 The relevant language of the grant, dated October 11, 1949, provides as follows:

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the said grantee [Treloar] to expand and reconstruct the facilities and equipment of said radio station KGEZ and in such expansion and reconstruction program it is the desire of the said grantee to erect and maintain certain radio towers, guy wires, ground and feed wires and conduits on certain portions of the hereinafter described lands, the exact location of which it is now impossible to determine; and,

WHEREAS, the said grantors [J.R. and Anna] have agreed ... to grant to the said grantee the perpetual right and easement to construct, erect, operate and maintain radio towers, guy wires and ground and feed wires and conduits upon and over the hereinafter described lands;

NOW, THEREFORE, ... the said grantors do hereby grant unto the said grantee, his heirs and assigns the perpetual right and easement to erect, construct, operate and maintain radio towers, guy wires and ground and feed wires and conduits in, upon, over and through those certain lands situate in the County of Flathead, State of Montana, more particularly described as follows, to-wit:

The North Half of the Southwest Quarter (N½SW¼), the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SW¼NW¼) all in Section Twenty-eight (28), Township Twenty-eight (28) North, Range Twenty-one (21) West; also, all of Cliffords Addition to Demersville, being the Southeast Quarter of the Northwest Quarter (SE¼NW¼) said section, township and range.

The said grantee shall have the right to select the place or places at which the above described facilities shall be erected and maintained and shall have the right to do whatever may be requisite or convenient for the enjoyment of the rights hereby granted, including the right of clearing said land, the removal of barriers and obstructions thereon, and the perpetual right on [sic] ingress and egress to and from said lands for the purpose of erecting, maintaining, repairing, renewing, altering, removing and restoring said radio facilities and equipment when desired by the said grantee his heirs and assigns;

The said grantors, their heirs or assigns are to fully use and enjoy said premises except for the easement and rights hereby granted and the said grantee for himself, his heirs or assigns hereby covenants to bury all wires and conduits capable of such burial to a depth of not less than 12 inches, so that the same will not unduly interfere with the cultivation of said premises, and to fence all towers and/or guy wires for their protection against livestock....

¶ 5 Treloar ultimately selected a site for the radio towers and built two towers with a corresponding transmission line, wires, conduits, and ground radial antennas on that site in the early 1950s.The towers and ground radial antennas have remained at that location since their construction.

¶ 6 Stokes purchased KGEZ in April 2000.Shortly thereafter, he advised the Andersons that he intended to enlarge or relocate the radio towers.In Stokes's view, the easement granted by J.R. and Anna covered all of the land described in the grant (160 acres).By contrast, the Andersons believed that the easement covered only the specific portion of land that Treloar selected in the early-1950s and on which the radio towers ultimately were built (roughly 31 of the 160 acres).

¶ 7 In addition to this disagreement as to the location and scope of the easement, the Andersons requested that Stokes bury the existing wires and conduits to a depth of at least 12 inches, fence the towers and guy wires that were not currently fenced, and repair the existing fences that were in disrepair.However, Stokes took the position that the Andersons' agricultural activities had pulled the wires above 12 inches in depth and that the Andersons, therefore, were responsible for reburying them.He also claimed that the fencing provision of the easement grant did not apply because the Andersons did not have livestock on the subject property.

¶ 8Douglas G. Anderson and Ruth M. Anderson as trustee of The Ruth M. Anderson Living Trust initiated the instant action on January 12, 2001.Davar Gardner and Todd Gardner later joined as plaintiffs pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 19(a)(2) and adopted all of the allegations in Douglas and Ruth's complaint.Under Count I of their complaint, the Andersons sought extinguishment of the easement due to Stokes's alleged "failure to keep the improvements on the easement in repair, refusal to repair the improvements on the easement, and noncompliance with the easement."Alternatively, the Andersons sought declaratory relief as to the location and scope of the easement (Count II) and injunctive relief requiring that Stokes comply with the terms of the easement grant (Count III).With respect to Count II, the Andersons alleged that "[t]he place of the easement was permanently set in the early to mid 1950s when Treloar selected the place on which to build the radio towers and, thereafter, built the radio towers on that place."

¶ 9 Stokes answered the complaint.He denied the Andersons' interpretation of the granting language, alleging instead that the easement covers the entire parcel of land described in the grant and that the towers and ground radial antennas "can be expanded upon or relocated anywhere within the entire parcel, as necessary to accommodate the operation of [Stokes's] radio station."Stokes further alleged that the existing main transmission line was not capable of being buried, that the Andersons were responsible for reburying any wires or conduits that were not at a depth of at least 12 inches due to the Andersons' agricultural activities, and that the Andersons had no reason to enforce the fencing provision of the easement grant because that provision is to protect Stokes, not the Andersons.(Stokes also asserted counterclaims that ultimately were compromised and settled on the merits and are not at issue here.)

¶ 10 On October 29, 2002, the District Court granted the Andersons' motion for partial summary judgment on Count II and denied Stokes's motion for summary judgment on Count II.The court determined that J.R., Anna, and Treloar had intended the easement to be restricted to "certain portions" of the lands described in the grant, not to encompass all of those lands.Further, the court determined that only Treloar, and not his heirs or assigns, had the right to choose the place or places to erect the radio towers.Finally, the court determined that Treloar's selection and use of the place where the radio towers now stand fixed the location and scope of the easement to that place."Thus, if [Stokes] propose[s] to enlarge the towers, add towers or move them to another location, such actions exceed the scope of the easement and are not permitted unless [the Andersons] agree thereto."Stokes thereafter filed a "Motion and Brief to Alter and Amend Order of October 29, 2002," which the court denied.

¶ 11 On September 29, 2005, the District Court granted the Andersons' motion for summary judgment on Count III and denied Stokes's cross-motion for summary judgment on the theory of laches.The court noted that the Andersons had presented evidence that at the time Stokes acquired KGEZ, all lines (radial antennas, conduits, transmission lines, and wires) were capable of being buried and historically had been buried.The court further noted that Stokes had presented "no evidence [to raise a material issue of fact] beyond counsel's argument to rebut [the Andersons'] evidence that the transmission line and any other lines are capable of being buried."The court determined, based on the "uncontroverted admissible evidence," that the exposed condition of the wires and conduits and Stokes's threats of legal action against the Andersons had...