Dethlefsen v. Weddle
| Decision Date | 22 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 30,312.,30,312. |
| Citation | 2012 -NMCA- 077,284 P.3d 452 |
| Parties | Lyle A. DETHLEFSEN and Vera A. Dethlefsen, Plaintiffs–Appellants, v. William H. WEDDLE, Ardeen J. Weddle, Individually and as Trustees of the Weddle Family Revocable Trust, Robert Cochran, Susan Cochran, Dan Warren, Von Eva Warren, Fred Brown, Bob Johnston, and The New Mexico Land Conservancy, Defendants–Appellees. |
| Court | Court of Appeals of New Mexico |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Deschamps & Kortemeier Law Offices, Stephen Karl Kortemeier, Socorro, NM, for Appellants.
Fitch & Tausch, LLC, Thomas G. Fitch, Socorro, NM, for Appellees Weddle.
{1} Lyle and Vera Dethlefsen (the Dethlefsens), property owners in Sierra County, brought suit against their neighbors and interested parties, sounding in tort, contract, and declaratory judgment, primarily regarding the use of an easement and corresponding road traversing their land. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled against the Dethlefsens, finding there had been no trespass upon their property, no breach of any agreement in existence between the parties, and declaring the easement to be unambiguous in dimension and unlimited in scope. On appeal, the Dethlefsens challenge only the district court's declarations that pertain to the creation and scope of the easement, and its conclusion regarding the use of a lockable gate at the easement's point of origin. We affirm the district court's determination that an express easement was unambiguously created over both the Dethlefsen property and a neighboring tract, the Warren property. But because we separately hold that the recorded documents establishing the easement are ambiguous with respect to the easement's scope, and the district court did not, we reverse its decision in part. We remand to allow the admission of extrinsic evidence and consideration of the surrounding circumstances to determine the proper scope of the easement, including whether and how a lockable gate can be used at the easement's point of origin.
{2} The four properties affected by this case are located along the eastern boundary of the Gila National Forest and collectively form the southern half of Section 17, as well as the eastern portion of Section 18 of Township 12 South, Range 8 West, N.M.P.M., Sierra County, New Mexico. The properties were all once held by the Eng family, who divided and conveyed the land, and assigned corresponding easements as follows (in chronological order): 1
(1) Cochran Property:
“[A] certain deed [was executed] from Kenneth S. Eng, Jr. to James R. Forrister and Kristie M. Forrister, dated [and filed for recording] August 14, 1992,” for lands that included the eastern half of the southeastern quarter of Section 18. An easement quitclaim was also executed that same day by Eng to the Forristers “for the purposes of ingress and egress, and the moving of livestock, more particularly described as ... [a]n easement along and across the existing road or any replacement of the existing road located in the S 1/2 of Section 17....” That same land and easement were sold by “Kristie M. Hawkins, formerly Kristie M. Forrister,” to “Robert A. Cochran and Susan D. Cochran” on March 16, 2007.
(2) Dethlefsen Property:
On May 31, 1997, “A.A.T. Inc., Robert Bechtel, President, for consideration paid grant[ed] to Lyle A. Dethlefsen and Vera A. Dethlefsen” “[a] tract of land being the south one-half of the southwest one-quarter and the west one-half of the southeast one-quarter [of] Section 17 ..., subject to easements, restrictions, and reservations of record, including a fifty (50) foot wide road easement to and across said property as shown on Loftus & Co. Plat 197–97....” (Emphasis added.)
On April 7, 1999, “Kenneth S. Eng, Jr., and Caroline Eng, husband and wife, for consideration paid, grant[ed] to AAT, Inc., Robert Bechtel, President” “[a] tract of land being the south one-half of the southwest one-quarter and the west one-half of the southeast one-quarter [of] Section 17,” subject to the same easement language.
(3) Weddle Property
“Kenneth S. Eng, as Trustee of the K.S. ENG, INC. PROFIT SHARING PLAN AND TRUST, for consideration paid, grant[ed] to William H. Weddle and Ardeen J. Weddle, Trustees of the Weddle Family Revocable Trust, dated June 23, 1998” on December 16, 2004. The same deed states
several tracts of land, including the eastern half of the southeastern quarter of Section 17 on April 20, 2001. Notably, the deed does not contain any easement reservation language.
“St. Cloud Mining Company, for consideration paid, grant[ed] to Robert F. Johnston and Rita T. Johnston, husband and wife and Fred M. Brown and Shirley Brown, husband and wife ... [t]he E/2 of the SE/4 of Section 17 ... on August 29, 2001,” subject to “existing and continuing mining operations and ... easements and other rights including uninterruptable [sic] and unrestricted access to the mine site....”
“Robert F. Johnston and Rita T. Johnston, husband and wife[,] and Fred M. Brown and Shirley Brown, husband and wife, ... entered into a binding Real Estate Contract with Daniel J. Warren and Von Eva Warren, husband and wife, ... [on] August 9, 2006 for ... [t]he E2 of the SE/4 of Section 17,” subject to the same mining reservations.
The current ownership and physical relationship between the properties are depicted in the following simplified map, which is provided to assist the reader's understanding and not to define any legal rights or precise dimensions.
{3} The Dethlefsens filed suit on December 28, 2006, against their surrounding property owners—the Weddles, Kristie Forrister (former owner of the Cochran Property), and Bob Johnston and Fred Brown (former owners of the Warren property). The complaint was amended 2 on August 27, 2007, to include the Cochrans, the Warrens, and the New Mexico Land Conservancy (NMLC) 3 as defendants.The court later dismissed Kristie Forrister from the case because the Dethlefsens “failed to state a claim against [her], under the [amended] complaint.” 4 The Dethlefsens asserted three counts against the remaining and additional defendants: (Count One) “Breach of Agreement” regarding the Dethlefsens' right to access the Weddle property to maintain fencing between the two properties, and seeking to enforce a separate oral agreement purportedly entered into by all owners to “secure the access” to the easement with a lockable gate at its point of origin on Forest Service Road 157, (Count Two) “Action for Declaratory Relief” seeking to restrict the Weddles' and Cochrans' use of the easement to a historical fourteen-foot-wide road “approximately following Monument Creek” to be used only for limited residential and agricultural purposes, and (Count Three) “Trespass” regarding the Weddles' use of the easement for commercial purposes, including “driv[ing] cattle” and providing third-party “access for commercial hunting.” After years of pre-trial litigation and several failed attempts at mediation, a bench trial on the merits was held on October 21, 2009.
{4} At trial, the Dethlefsens' attorney sought to present Mr. Dethlefsen as the primary witness to establish the case-in-chief. But less than half an hour into Mr. Dethlefsen's direct examination, the district court began to disallow testimony regarding the circumstances surrounding the nature of the easement and gate. The court ruled that the recorded “documents [were not] ambiguous” and on that basis barred admission of the extrinsic evidence being offered.
The court stated more fully:
My ruling on that would be the document by which Mr. Dethlefsen took title contains a reservation of an explicit fifty-foot-wide easement and that's not ambiguous ... and that the Warren property is also subject to that same easement. The testimony that you are offering seems to be directed to vary or modify the terms of that written instrument.
As a result, the Dethlefsens' attorney was forced to forego his planned presentation of extrinsic evidence regarding the intended scope of the easement:
I apologize for taking a few minutes here to ... put this in the context of the court's ... comments about the lack of ambiguity about the nature of the easement. As the court may well appreciate those things have taken quite a few things that I was going to go into out of consideration and so I need to regroup a little bit and if the court would ... indulge me in a moment or two?
{5} Ultimately, the court accepted some extrinsic evidence, such as the recorded property deeds for the surrounding properties and several photographs of the road and gate system that was installed at the origin of the easement at Forest Service Road 157. Yet it disallowed the Dethlefsens the opportunity to further develop the record with evidence regarding the use of the road or of the common grantor's intent surrounding the initial establishment of the easement and gate. At the outset of trial, the Dethlefsens' attorney asserted that:
There are some facts that need to be elicited regarding the intention of the parties, particularly ... [that] of Dr. Eng, the circumstances that existed back in '92, the circumstances that gave rise to the expansion ... of the change of the gate, from twelve to fourteen feet, and to the nature of the locking system.
The Dethlefsens' exhibit list, which includes “Kenneth Eng Letter dated August 8, 2005 to Counsel,” as well as their supplemental exhibit list, which provides “[f]our pages of correspondence with Dr. Eng, including signed response...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ching v. Dung
...easement but failed to state whether owners of servient estate could place gates over the easement); see also Dethlefsen v. Weddle, 284 P.3d 452, 459-60 (N.M. Ct. App. 2012) (holding that the scope of an easement, described as a fifty-foot wide road easement to and across said property as s......
-
Acequia Compound Owners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Orchard Metal Capital Corp.
...the dominant estate (613 Old Santa Fe Trail). See Jordan , 745 S.W.2d at 553 ; see, e.g. , Dethlefsen v. Weddle , 2012-NMCA-077, ¶ 12, 284 P.3d 452 ("[T]he written language of an easement should be conclusive."). {12} Defendant OMC cites authorities in which the dominant estate was permitte......
-
Rio Grande Credit Union v. City of Albuquerque
...As explained below, we disagree.{15} We interpret the language creating an easement de novo. Dethlefsen v. Weddle, 2012-NMCA-077, ¶ 10, 284 P.3d 452; see also Brooks v. Tanner, 1984-NMSC-048, ¶ 11, 101 N.M. 203, 680 P.2d 343 ("The evidence bearing on the issue is substantially all documenta......
-
Mayer v. Smith
...should be conclusive, and consideration of extrinsic evidence is generally inappropriate.” Dethlefsen v. Weddle, 2012–NMCA–077, ¶ 12, 284 P.3d 452. Furthermore, “[w]here ... the grant or reservation is specific in its terms, it is ... decisive of the limits of the easement. ” Dyer v. Comper......