Brown v. Hanson

Decision Date26 December 2007
Docket NumberNo. 24526.,24526.
Citation743 N.W.2d 677,2007 SD 134
PartiesTerry BROWN and Susan Brown, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. James HANSON, Defendant and Appellant.
CourtSouth Dakota Supreme Court

Dylan A. Wilde, Brady & Pluimer, Spearfish, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellees.

Brad P. Gordon, Eric J. Strawn, Tellinghuisen & Gordon, P.C., Spearfish, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellant.


[¶ 1.] James Hanson appeals from a summary judgment granted in a declaratory judgment action in favor of Terry Brown and Susan Brown (Browns) concerning the question of whether Hanson was entitled to rescind a Common Well and Road Easement Agreement (Easement Agreement). We affirm.


[¶ 2.] Browns and Hanson own adjoining real property in Meade County, South Dakota. A well that provides water to both properties is located on Hanson's property. On June 14, 2000, Browns and Hanson entered into the Easement Agreement giving Browns the right to access water from the well for domestic purposes only. The Easement Agreement provided as follows:

That it shall be binding upon "Brown, Hanson and their respective heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall be considered to be a covenant running with the land. The parties agree that the well located upon the Hanson property shall be utilized to provide water service to both the Hanson property and the Brown property. The parties each agree to use the water from the well for domestic purposes only and neither party shall sell any water from well, without written consent of the other party.

[¶ 3.] In July of 2006, Browns entered into a purchase agreement to sell their property to a third party. Before the sale was complete, Hanson filed a letter with the Meade County Register of Deeds claiming he had rescinded the Easement Agreement. Browns commenced a declaratory judgment action to determine if Hanson could seek rescission as a remedy. Hanson filed an answer and a counterclaim seeking rescission.

[¶ 4.] It is undisputed that each year from 2000 to 2005 Browns permitted 15-20 individuals to place their tents and recreational vehicles on their property during the Sturgis Bike Rally. For purposes of summary judgment, the circuit court considered as undisputed fact that Browns had used water for non-domestic, non-residential purposes and thereby had breached the agreement. The only issue before the circuit court was whether Hanson was entitled to the remedy of rescission. Based upon the language of the Easement Agreement, the court determined that the parties did not intend to create a conditional easement but had created a permanent water right. The court determined that the remedy of rescission was not available for breach of the agreement and entered partial summary judgment in favor of Browns and against Hanson. Hanson claims that the circuit court erred when it determined that rescission was not a remedy. The issue on appeal is as follows:


Whether Hanson has the right to seek rescission as a remedy for breach of the Easement Agreement.


[¶ 5.] "When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, `we must determine whether the moving party demonstrated the absence of any genuine issue of material fact and showed entitlement to judgment on the merits as a matter of law.'" Kling v. Stern, 2007 SD 51, ¶ 5, 733 N.W.2d 615, 617. "All facts and favorable inferences from those facts must be viewed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party." Hendrix v. Schulte, 2007 SD 73, ¶ 6, 736 N.W.2d 845, 847. Once we determine that the "material facts [are] undisputed, our review is limited to determining" whether the law was correctly applied. Schulte v. Progressive Northern Ins. Co., 2005 SD 75, ¶ 5, 699 N.W.2d 437, 438. "If any legal basis exists to support the circuit court's ruling, we affirm." Johns v. Black Hills Power, Inc., 2006 SD 85, ¶ 4, 722 N.W.2d 554, 556.


[¶ 6.] The parties agree that they had an express easement. An easement is "`an interest in the land in the possession of another which entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists.'" Knight v. Madison, 2001 SD 120, ¶ 4, 634 N.W.2d 540, 541 (citing Gilbert v. KTI, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 289, 293 (Mo.Ct.App.1988) (citations omitted)). South Dakota law recognizes a "right of taking water" as an easement "that may be attached to other land as incidents or appurtenances." SDCL 43-13-2. Additionally, "[t]he extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired." SDCL 43-13-5.

[¶ 7.] Here the parties determined the terms of the servitude by a written contract. The written contract involved the well and water main running from the well through three service lines with shut-off valves. One line serviced the home on the Brown property, and the other two lines serviced the home and barn on the Hanson property. The written contract set forth the parties' "rights and obligations concerning the use of water from the water well." The agreement provided that the parties would "use the water from the well for domestic purposes only, and neither party shall sell any water from the well, without written consent of the other party." The agreement also specified that each party was responsible for the maintenance of the service lines on the party's property and one-half of the cost of electricity and repair and maintenance of the equipment. Other provisions of the agreement involved the right of access to each other's property and to a trail running across Browns' property, and apportioned the use and cost of maintenance of an access road.

[¶ 8.] Hanson claims, pursuant to SDCL 43-13-12, that Browns' use of the water for non-domestic purposes extinguished the water easement because non-domestic water use was incompatible with the nature or exercise of the easement. Hanson claims that since the easement was extinguished, he is entitled to seek rescission as a remedy. In determining the narrow issue of whether Hanson could seek rescission, the circuit court assumed that Browns had breached the Easement Agreement.

[¶ 9.] South Dakota law recognizes rescission of a written contract in certain cases. SDCL 21-12-1. SDCL 53-11-2 provides for rescission of a written contract "in the following cases only:"

(1) If consent of the party rescinding or of any party jointly contracting with him was given by mistake or obtained through duress, fraud, or undue influence exercised by or with the connivance of the party as to whom he rescinds, or of any other party to the contract jointly interested with such party;

(2) If through fault of the party as to whom he rescinds, the consideration for his obligation fails in whole or in part;

(3) If the consideration becomes entirely void from any cause;

(4) If such consideration before it is rendered to him fails in a material respect from any cause; or

(5) By consent of all the other parties.

Id. Since Hanson neither alleged nor provided evidence as to any of the statutory factors, the circuit court correctly concluded that SDCL 53-11-2 did not apply.

[¶ 10.] Consequently, Hanson's counterclaim for a judgment of rescission is equitable in nature. See Northwest Realty Co. v. Carter, 338 N.W.2d 669, 672 (S.D.1983). "Generally, equity will not take jurisdiction to declare a rescission where a party has an adequate and complete remedy at law." Id. Further, the maxim consistently recognized and reiterated in the South Dakota courts, the federal courts and the United States Supreme Court is that "a court of equity abhors forfeitures, and will not lend its aid to enforce them." Jones v. New York Guaranty & Indem. Co., 101 U.S. 622, 628, 25 L.Ed. 1030 (1879) (refusing contract rescission on equity maxims).

[¶ 11.] The circuit court determined that the easement was permanent in nature. The Browns-Hanson Easement Agreement was not limited to a set number of years nor was it contingent on subsequent happenings. In Steele v. Pfeifer, we stated that where,

[t]here is no limitation set out in the terms of the easement or grant, either in years, or upon a happening of a particular event as a contingency . . . it has generally been held to be permanent in nature and would continue in operation forever, unless abandoned by non-use. This is particularly true where words of inheritance are used. (citations omitted).

310 N.W.2d 782, 786-87 (SD 1981). Although Hanson does not challenge that the easement is permanent, he claims it was extinguished by Browns' misuse.

[¶ 12.] South Dakota law sets forth the conditions of extinguishment. The statute provides: "A servitude is 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. "The land to which an easement is attached is called the dominant tenement; the land upon which a burden or servitude is laid is called the servient tenement." SDCL 43-13-3. "The extent of a servitude is determined by the terms of the grant, or the nature of the enjoyment by which it was acquired." SDCL 43-13-5. The extent of the servitude in this case is determined by the terms of the Easement Agreement. This Court stated in Knight v. Madison, "[u]nder [SDCL 43-13-5], neither the physical size nor the purpose or use to which an easement may be put can be expanded 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 the grant." Halsrud v. Brodale, 247 Iowa 273, 72 N.W.2d 94, 98 (Iowa 1955).

[¶ 13.] For extinguishment to occur pursuant to SDCL 43-13-12, Browns' "performance of any act" (commercial use of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Dehaven v. Hall
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • July 2, 2008
    ... ...          Matter of Estate of O'Keefe, 1998 SD 92, ¶ 18, 583 N.W.2d 138, 142 (quoting Salem Sales, Inc. v. Brown, 443 N.W.2d 14, 15 (S.D.1989)) ...         [¶ 42.] Prior to 1992, costs included indemnity. Nelson v. Nelson Cattle Co., 513 N.W.2d ... 2. Technically, under South Dakota law, easements are extinguished, not forfeited. SDCL ch 43-13. See Brown v. Hanson, 2007 SD 134, 743 N.W.2d 677 ... 3. We treat this as a motion ... 4. We have noted that the failure to "make use of the full rights of the ... ...
  • Brown v. Hanson
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • May 18, 2011
  • Macy Elevator, Inc. v. United States
    • United States
    • U.S. Claims Court
    • June 21, 2012 entitled." Id. Courts and legislatures in other jurisdictions have adopted similar versions of this rule. See, e.g., Brown v. Hanson, 743 N.W.2d 677, 681 (S.D. 2007) (holding that under a South Dakota statute governing termination of easements, an unauthorized use of an easement warrants......
  • Brandt v. Cnty. of Pennington
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • February 27, 2013
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT