Berglund v. Brian
| Decision Date | 06 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 48276 |
| Citation | 170 Idaho 378,511 P.3d 260 |
| Parties | Craig Marshall BERGLUND and Kristi Anne Berglund, husband and wife; Mary Kaye Brown, an individual, Plaintiffs-Respondents, and Scott Cheser and Dawn Cheser, Real Parties in Interest-Respondents, v. Brian DIX, Defendant-appellant, and Does I through X, Defendants. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
Mooney Wieland, PLLC, Boise, for Appellant. Carl Withroe argued.
Borton-Lakey Law and Policy, Meridian, for Respondents. Victor Villegas argued.
This appeal arises from a dispute between neighbors over a locked gate placed across a road subject to easement rights. Respondents Craig and Kristi Berglund and Mary Kaye Brown, then owners of the dominant estates, sued Brian Dix, who placed the gate on his property, the servient estate. The district court granted the Respondents’ motion for summary judgment and ordered the gate removed from Dix's property. Dix appealed.
Before this Court heard the appeal, the Berglunds and Brown both sold their real property to different third parties. On appeal, Dix argued that this case was moot because Respondents no longer had standing to assert their rights under the easement. Thus, Dix contends, the district court's order should be vacated. In the alternative, Dix argued that the district court erred when it granted summary judgment. Dix also argued that the district court erred when it awarded attorney fees to the Respondents. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
On February 28, 2003, Brian Dix ("Dix") purchased real property in Gem County, Idaho. The property is subject to a non-exclusive "ingress, egress and utility easement under, over and across a strip of land lying 50.00 feet south of and adjacent to" Dix's northern property boundary line. This easement is known as "Palomino Lane."
Mary Kaye Brown ("Brown") and her husband purchased a parcel located along Palomino Lane on April 15, 2004. The warranty deed contains "a non-exclusive right of way for a perpetual ingress, egress and utility easement." The Brown property was later transferred by quitclaim deed to the Alan and Mary Kaye Brown Trust of which Mary Kaye Brown is the surviving Co-Trustee and beneficiary.
In 2017, the property owners along Palomino Lane consisted of Dix and his wife, Brown, and three sets of neighbors—Marc and Paula Marcelin, Scott and Reiza Crager, and Roger and Patricia Kenyon. The Marcelins, Cragers, Kenyons, and Dixes agreed to install a gate across the entrance to the easement on Dix's property in response to concerns of trespassers and vandalism. Brown was not involved in the conversations that resulted in this agreement. Dix states that Roger Kenyon ("Mr. Kenyon") tried several times over a four-week period to contact Brown, but she never responded. Dix maintains that after the installation, Mr. Kenyon sent Brown the gate lock combination. However, Brown states she did not receive the combination. The district court found that all neighbors except Brown were given the combination.
In Mr. Kenyon's affidavit, he stated, "[the] limited purpose [for the gate] was if all of us property owners on Palomino Lane were gone, we would close the gate and wrap a chain around it." It is unclear when the gate was locked or closed after it was installed. Dix states that from the time it was installed, the gate was generally locked at night and unlocked during the day. However, Brown and the Kenyons state that until 2019, the gate was never kept locked or even closed except for a few occasions on which the gate was closed when all property owners were gone. The district court found that the gate initially remained mostly open and unlocked.
Kristi and Craig Berglund (collectively, the "Berglunds") purchased the Marcelins’ property in January 2018 but did not move in until August 2018. The Berglunds’ warranty deed also contained "a non-exclusive right of way for a perpetual ingress, egress and utility easement." It is unclear when the Berglunds became aware of the existence of the gate. In his affidavit, Craig Berglund stated that he and his wife were not made aware of the gate until after they moved in, despite having seen the property prior to their purchase. However, in their depositions, the Berglunds stated that they drove through the gate twice before purchasing the property. Mr. Berglund stated that he spoke to the realtor regarding the easement because he noticed the gate when he was purchasing the property. Ms. Berglund stated, in her deposition, that she did not notice the gate until after moving in. Regardless, they testified that the gate was open both times they visited the property.
Beginning in March 2019, disputes arose among the property owners on Palomino Lane regarding the status of the gate and whether it should be kept closed or locked. Sometime after the Berglunds moved in, Dix began closing and locking the gate. The Berglunds maintain that the gate was not locked until March 2019. Ms. Berglund, in her deposition, testified that she was "absolutely positive" the first time she received the lock combination was March 2019. However, Dix provided a screenshot of a text message sent on May 20, 2018, from Elise Dix ("Ms. Dix") to Kristi Berglund ("Ms. Berglund") with the combination.
Late one night in early March 2019, an unknown car drove down Palomino Lane. Two days later, upon noticing unknown people wandering around the property, Ms. Dix locked the gate. She sent a text to Ms. Berglund to inform her that the gate was locked. Ms. Berglund responded "Ok." A few days later, Ms. Berglund requested a chain be wrapped around the gate but that it not be locked. She expressed difficulty reading the numbers and that it was taking her too long to unlock. The Dixes agreed, but said that they wanted the gate locked if issues arose again. Ms. Berglund agreed, replying "Ok thank you." On March 17, Ms. Berglund found the gate locked and assumed the Dixes had locked it. That same day, Ms. Dix informed Ms. Berglund that the Kenyons had locked it. On March 29, Ms. Berglund messaged Ms. Dix and notified her that the gate should be left open to allow emergency vehicles access. Ms. Berglund also stated that the fire chief determined the gate could only be locked if there was a box with a key in it that the fire department could use to open it. Ms. Dix ordered a fire department approved lock which arrived mid-April. Mr. Berglund provided images and stated that on at least two occasions, the fire lock was present but improperly locked in such a way that even if the fire department opened their lock, the gate would remain locked.
In early April 2019, Dix, the Berglunds, and Mr. Kenyon met to attempt to resolve the issue of the gate. Mr. Berglund sent Dix information regarding an electric gate. Dix agreed to consider the electric gate, but they never discussed it again. Mr. Berglund stated that he was under the impression Dix had no interest in an electric gate because he did not respond to Mr. Berglund.
Ms. Kenyon, in her affidavit, recounts an experience on April 20, 2019 when she made multiple trips to and from her property without closing the gate. Dix requested she close the gate. According to the Kenyons, Dix blocked her vehicle with his. She refused to close and lock the gate and called the Sheriff. Dix claims Ms. Kenyon refused to close the gate after the deputy asked her to shut it.
Starting in April 2019, Ms. Berglund repeatedly removed the gate locks and threw them onto Dix's property. In her deposition, Ms. Berglund states she stopped throwing the locks after she "got with [her] attorney" in May 2019. Dix asserts Ms. Berglund continued to throw the locks through June 2019. The Berglunds also admitted to driving around the gate after filing their suit.
The Berglunds state that the gate has interfered with their use and enjoyment of their land. They assert that since the gate has been locked, they have not received trash service and have had to take their trash to a neighbor's home on the road that intersects with Palomino Lane. The Berglunds also claim that they had not received mosquito abatement service after the gate was locked at all times. The Berglunds further complain that parcels too large to fit in their mailbox have been left outside the gate instead of delivered to their front door. Dix has a parcel receiving box outside the gate near the mailboxes, and he claims that he has offered to all neighbors the use of this receiving box with none taking him up on the offer. However, the Berglunds assert the box only has Dix's address and that they have not been given permission to use it.
The Berglunds filed a Complaint against Dix on May 15, 2019. On July 11, 2019, the district court permitted the Berglunds to amend their complaint to add Brown as a plaintiff. The Berglunds and Brown (collectively, the "Respondents") sought a preliminary and permanent injunction requiring Dix to remove the gate from his property or leave it open at all times. The Respondents also requested attorney fees.
Five days prior to the Berglunds amending their complaint to add Brown as a plaintiff, there was an incident between Brown and Dix recorded in an incident summary by the Gem County Sheriff's Office. According to the report, Brown stated that she had been locked out by a neighbor. She told the deputy that she had not been given a key or code but admitted that she had never asked for one. Dix provided the deputy with the code to give to Brown. Dix told the deputy she had been sent the code in a text message two years prior.
The district court granted the Respondents’ motion for a preliminary injunction, ordering that the gate remain open and unlocked. The Respondents then filed a motion for summary judgment, which the district court granted. The district court entered a judgment requiring the gate be left open and removed within 60 days. Dix filed a motion to...
To continue reading
Request your trial