Boyer v. Dennis
| Decision Date | 20 November 2007 |
| Docket Number | No. 24437.,24437. |
| Citation | 742 N.W.2d 518,2007 SD 121 |
| Parties | Ralph William BOYER, Plaintiff and Appellant v. Kathryn DENNIS, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Tina M. Hogue, of Finch, Bettmann, Maks & Hogue, P.C., Rapid City, for defendant and appellee.
[¶ 1.] Ralph Boyer appeals the circuit court's judgment concluding that Boyer's easement for ingress and egress over Kathryn Dennis' property was extinguished by nonuse and intent to abandon. We reverse.
[¶ 2.] Boyer and Dennis own adjoining parcels of land. The northern border of Boyer's property (Lot B) is the southern border of Dennis' property (Lot L1). Boyer purchased Lot B with his wife Angela on May 15, 1982, from Dorothy Storm. Storm acquired the property from her husband Clemens Storm on December 20, 1976. Clemens Storm purchased Lot B from Arthur and Katherine Heligas on March 29, 1973.
[¶ 3.] While Arthur and Katherine Heligas were owners of Lot B, they also were owners of Lot L. During the time they owned both lots, they granted an express easement for ingress and egress over Lot L for the benefit of Lot B.2 Dennis acquired ownership of Lot L from Arthur Heligas on August 4, 1972. The deed acknowledged the easement. At the time the property was conveyed, a wire fence separated Lots B and L. In 1973, Dennis built her home on Lot L.
[¶ 4.] After Dennis purchased Lot L, Arthur Heligas never utilized the easement for access to Lot B. Instead, Heligas accessed Lot B through two alternative routes: (1) via Canyon Lake Drive, Lilac Lane, and a sixteen foot easement over a lot south of Lot B; or (2) via Lakeview Drive, crossing private property directly south of Lot B (the Alternate Routes).
[¶ 5.] When Clemens Storm purchased Lot B in 1973, Storms sporadically used the easement. The majority of the time they used the Alternate Routes to access Lot B. Dennis had informed Dorothy Storm that Dennis was not in agreement with Storm's use of the easement for ingress and egress. When Dorothy Storm became title holder of Lot B in 1976, the Storms discontinued all use of the easement.
[¶ 6.] On May 15, 1982, Dorothy Storm sold Lot B to Boyers. Although Boyers purchased the property, Angela's parents, the Winchesters, occupied the property until the Boyers divorced in 2006. In that same year Ralph Boyer became the sole owner of Lot B, he moved onto the property, and made his first personal attempt to utilize the easement on Lot L for ingress and egress to Lot B. Boyer's attempt to utilize the easement was the catalyst for the suit, and the Winchester family's use or nonuse of the easement during their occupancy from 1982 to 2006 was the focus of the trial.
[¶ 7.] The trial court found: (1) that from May 15, 1982 until April 1, 2006, neither Boyer nor the Winchesters used the easement as a means of ingress and egress to Lot B, rather they accessed Lot B via the Alternate Routes; (2) that Winchesters impeded the use of the easement by placing "junk cars" and wood piles at its entry; (3) that Boyer/Winchesters failed to maintain the easement, allowing bushes, shrubs, and lawn to encroach; and (4) that Winchesters had closed and bolted shut the easement's access gate, essentially destroying the right to use the right of way. Although there was evidence of extremely limited vehicle use and some foot and bicycle use during this time, the court concluded that foot and bicycle traffic of a "kid" was not the type of ingress and egress contemplated by the express grant. The court stated, "[t]he fact that some kid walks down the road or rides his bicycle down it, I don't think that's the intended use of the easement." The court also discounted the Winchesters' vehicular use of the easement, some of which was the result of city construction on the Alternate Routes. The trial court ultimately concluded that Boyer's easement had been extinguished.
[¶ 8.] Boyer appeals, contesting both the trial court's findings of fact and conclusion of law. Graves v. Dennis, 2004 SD 137, ¶ 9, 691 N.W.2d 315, 317 (citation omitted). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Northstream Investments, Inc. v. 1804 Country Store Co., 2007 SD 93, ¶ 8, 739 N.W.2d 44, 47.
[¶ 9.] An easement may be extinguished by "the performance of any act upon either tenement, by the owner of the servitude, or with his assent, which is incompatible with its nature or exercise." SDCL 43-13-12. Intent to abandon the easement is also required.
Under this statute, Hofmeister v. Sparks, 2003 SD 35, ¶ 13, 660 N.W.2d 637, 641 (citing Clark v. Redlich, 147 Cal.App.2d 500, 305 P.2d 239, 244 (1957)). However, a substituted access may serve as evidence of abandonment, but that by itself is not dispositive. Id. Use of a substitute road may be evidence of an abandonment of the old road; however, Id. (quoting Shippy v. Hollopeter, 304 N.W.2d 118, 122 (S.D.1981)). Those claiming abandonment carry the burden of showing by clear and convincing evidence an intent to abandon the easement. Cleveland v. Tinaglia, 1998 SD 91, ¶ 26, 582 N.W.2d 720, 725; see Mueller v. Bohannon, 256 Neb. 286, 589 N.W.2d 852, 859 (1999).
Graves, 2004 SD 137, ¶ 11, 691 N.W.2d at 318. The clear and convincing evidence of intent to abandon was emphasized in Graves:
Failure to take advantage of a servitude benefit, even for a lengthy period, is seldom sufficient to persuade a court that abandonment has occurred. Some additional action on the part of the beneficiary inconsistent with continued existence of the servitude is normally required, although the amount of additional evidence required tends to diminish as the period of nonuse grows longer. In cases where a very long period of time has passed, abandonment may be found even without other evidence of intent.
Id. ¶ 12 (quoting RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF PROPERTY, § 7.4 cmt. c (2000)). Ultimately, because of the nature of these cases: "A finding of abandonment is usually based on circumstantial evidence rather than on direct expressions of intent...." Id.
[¶ 10.] Boyer argues that the acts of the Winchesters, the tenants in possession, did not reflect an intent to abandon the easement. He specifically contends the trial court erred in finding that the easement had not been used for ingress and egress from 1982 through 2006. With respect to the trial court's conclusions, he contends that the trial court erred as a matter of law in concluding that the pedestrian, bicycle, and sporadic vehicular use did not constitute ingress and egress sustaining his easement. We agree with Boyer.
[¶ 11.] In reaching its decision, the trial court placed significant weight on the fact that at some points in time Winchesters closed, and at one point even bolted, the access gate to the easement. This conduct, however, did not reflect an intent to abandon. The testimony was undisputed that the gate was shut to stop a neighbor's (a non-dominant tenant's) constant vehicular use of the private easement and to keep trespassing children out of Winchesters' workshop. Rather than reflecting an intent to abandon, these actions reflected an intent to protect Lot B from trespassers and to limit use of the private easement to those individuals who had a right to use it. Moreover, in 1994, the chain on the gate was exchanged for a rope to permit access to the easement by the Winchesters' children who used it to get back and forth to school and deliver newspapers. This gated use by the possessors of the dominant tenement reflected intent to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v. Hanson
...or enlarged beyond the terms of the grant of the easement." 2001 SD 120, ¶ 6, 634 N.W.2d 540, 542 (citation omitted); Boyer v. Dennis, 2007 SD 121, 742 N.W.2d 518. A grantee may not "increase the amount or extent" of use of an easement "beyond what was originally intended and embraced in th......