Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence

• Decision Date: 29 June 2016
• Docket Number: Docket No. 42326
• Citation: 160 Idaho 452,375 P.3d 282
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Parties: CAPSTAR RADIO OPERATING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Douglas P. LAWRENCE and Brenda J. Lawrence, husband and wife, Defendants–Appellants.

160 Idaho 452
375 P.3d 282

CAPSTAR RADIO OPERATING COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Douglas P. LAWRENCE and Brenda J. Lawrence, husband and wife, Defendants–Appellants.

Docket No. 42326

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2016 Term.

Filed: June 29, 2016

Clark & Feeney, LLP, Lewiston, for appellant. Jeremy Carr argued.

James, Vernon & Weeks, PA, Coeur d'Alene, for respondents. Susan P. Weeks argued.

BURDICK, Justice

160 Idaho 454

This case comes to this Court on appeal from the Kootenai County district court's judgment in favor of Capstar Radio Operating Company (Capstar) on its implied easement by prior use and prescriptive easement claims over property owned by Douglas and Brenda Lawrence (the Lawrences). This is

375 P.3d 285

160 Idaho 455

the fourth time this case has been up to this Court. Following the last remand, the district court conducted a six-day bench trial, after which it entered its Memorandum Decision and Order granting Capstar an easement over the disputed road on the Lawrences' property. The Lawrences appealed to this Court, arguing, among other things, that the district court's determinations regarding the easement claims were not supported by substantial and competent evidence. We affirm.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

A. Procedural History

This case began on November 7, 2002, when Capstar filed a complaint seeking to (1) quiet title to an easement, and (2) permanently enjoin the Defendants, Douglas and Brenda Lawrence ("the Lawrences"), from interfering with the easement road that crosses their property.

In its complaint, Capstar alleged that it had an easement through the Lawrences' property on Blossom Mountain Road that allowed it to access its parcel. Capstar asserted it was granted an easement across the Lawrences' property by the Lawrences' predecessors. Capstar set forth four easement theories: (1) Express easement; (2) Implied easement; (3) Easement by necessity; and (4) Prescriptive easement. Capstar moved for summary judgment. The trial court found there was an express easement and granted summary judgment. The Lawrences appealed.

In Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence , 143 Idaho 704, 152 P.3d 575 (2007) ( Capstar I ), the Idaho Supreme Court held that Capstar did not have an express easement across the Lawrences' property. The matter was remanded for determination as to the other three theories. Capstar I , 143 Idaho at 709, 152 P.3d at 580. On remand, Capstar renewed its Motion for Summary Judgment and the trial court again granted summary judgment as to all three of the alternative theories. The trial court also struck the Lawrences' defenses of laches and the statute of limitations. The Lawrences appealed, and in Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence , 149 Idaho 623, 238 P.3d 223 (2010) ( Capstar II ), the Idaho Supreme Court dismissed the appeal because no final judgment had been entered. A final judgment was then entered and the Lawrences appealed. In Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence , 153 Idaho 411, 283 P.3d 728 (2012) ( Capstar III ), the Idaho Supreme Court held that there were genuine issues of material fact in existence as to all three easement theories. The Court stated that "this case is highly complex and presents multiple issues of material fact which the lower court should address at trial." Id. at 421, 283 P.3d at 738. The Supreme Court also affirmed the trial court's decision to strike the affirmative defenses of laches and the statute of limitations and removed the previous judge. Id.

On June 11, 2013, a six-day bench trial began. It concluded on June 18, 2013. The trial was combined with Spectra Site Communications, Inc. v. Douglas and Brenda Lawrence , Kootenai County Case No. CV–03–4621, as there were common issues, common witnesses, and the same defendants in each action.

B. Uncontested Pertinent Facts

1. The Location of the Respective Parcels.

The Lawrences and Capstar own real property on Blossom Mountain, which is located south of Post Falls, Idaho. The Lawrence parcel is located in the southeast quarter of Section 21, and the Capstar parcel is located to the east of the Lawrence parcel in the southwest quarter of Section 22. Section 21 is directly west of Section 22. Both the Lawrence parcel and the Capstar parcel were part of a larger tract of land that Harold and Marlene Funk once owned. The Funks purchased their parcel in 1969, and it consisted of land in Section 15, Section 21, and Section 22. All of the real property involved in this case is located in Township 50 North, Range 5 West, Boise Meridian, Kootenai County, Idaho.

2. Access and History of Ownership

The district court noted that there was no testimony contesting the following facts,

375 P.3d 286

160 Idaho 456

which were established by the admission of exhibits and/or the testimony of the witnesses. Having reviewed the record, we agree. We reiterate the district court's statement of undisputed facts below, in chronological order for ease of understanding.

The only public road providing access to the private easement road, which then accesses all of the real property that is subject to this litigation, is Signal Point Road. This easement road that connects to Signal Point Road has been referred to as Blossom Mountain Road, West Blossom Road, or Ski Hill Road. No testimony was provided that any real property owner or lessee in Section 21 or Section 22 used any other road to access their real estate. The diagram exhibit below, which was admitted at trial, shows the easement road that proceeds from the southwest quarter of Section 21 to the northwest quarter of Section 28 to the Southwest quarter of Section 21 to where the Capstar and Spectra Site properties are located in the southwest quarter of Section 22.

?

The properties involved are either directly or tangentially located near Blossom Mountain, which is approximately two miles as the crow flies from the City of Post Falls, Idaho.

(a) The General Telephone Property

On July 14, 1966, the General Telephone Company, (GTC), obtained an easement to access an acre of land in Section 22 (not the Capstar parcel) over a private road owned by Glenn D. Blossom and Ethel Blossom that crossed the southwest quarter of Section 21 (Blossom's property), then moved south and entered the north half of Section 28 where it eventually turned northeast and entered the adjacent section in the southeast quarter of Section 21 (over what is now the Lawrence parcel). It proceeded from Section 21 into the southwest quarter of Section 22 (near the Capstar parcel). The easement included a condition that GTC was to erect a swing gate on the property.

In order for GTC to obtain access through Section 28, on August 18, 1966, William C. Ulrich and Edna M. Ulrich granted GTC an easement across their real property in Section 28. The terms of the easement required GTC to construct "two steel swinging type gates." A few months later, on October 16, 1966, GTC bought real property in Section 22 for the purposes of communication transmissions.

375 P.3d 287

160 Idaho 457

(b) The Funk Property

In 1969, Harold and Marlene Funk entered into a real estate contract to purchase:

Parcel A: Government Lot 3, Section 15;

Parcel B: The Southeast Quarter of Section 21;

Parcel C: Government Lot 4, Section 22;

"Southwest quarter, Northwest quarter, and Southeast quarter, Section 22, all in Township 50 North, Range 5 west, Boise Meridian."

Excepted from the property under contract to the Funks was the real property that was previously conveyed in Section 22 to GTC in 1966.

On November 7, 1972, Wilber and Florence Mead and Ethel Blossom conveyed an easement for ingress and egress across the Blossom/Meads' real property for the benefit of all the land the Funks were purchasing.

The Funks decided to sell the bulk of their real property to Human Synergistics in 1975. On July 10, 1975, seven sales agreements were recorded which reflected the contracts for sale of separate parcels of all of the Funk's real property in Section 21 and Section 15 as well as most of the real property in Section 22 except for the Southeast quarter of section 22, which was retained by the Funks.

In each of the seven contracts the language set forth below was included:

5. Subject to and including an ingress egress easement over this and adjoining property, in Said Sections 21 and 22 owned by the grantor and including an ingress egress easement over portions of Section 21 heretofore granted to the grantors. Said easement shall be over existing roads until such time as all record owners shall agree to the

...