Easterling v. Hal Pac. Props.

Decision Date21 December 2021
Docket Number47919
PartiesEDWARD A. EASTERLING and JANICE EASTERLING, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. HAL PACIFIC PROPERTIES, L.P., a California limited partnership registered to conduct business in the State of Idaho, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Idaho

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Bonneville County. Joel E. Tingey District Judge.

The judgment of the district court is vacated, its decisions after the bench trial, reconsideration, and summary judgment are reversed, and this case remanded for further proceedings.

Pickens Law, P.A., Boise, for Appellant.

Susan A. Kidwell, Pro Hac Vice, argued.

Hall Angell &Associates, LLP, Idaho Falls, for Respondents. Cory Stegelmeier argued.

WOOD Justice Pro Tem.

This case concerns an action brought by two landowners to secure an easement for access to their three merged land-locked parcels. Edward and Janice Easterling (the "Easterlings") own three contiguous parcels of real property in Ammon, Idaho. The Easterlings brought suit against Hal Pacific Properties, L.P. ("HAL") claiming an easement by necessity over and upon HAL's property (the "HAL Parcel") in order to access their three merged parcels. Following cross- motions for summary judgment, a motion for reconsideration, and a short bench trial, the district court largely ruled in the Easterlings' favor. The district court denied HAL's affirmative defense that the Easterlings' claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court further held that the Easterlings were entitled to an easement by necessity over and upon the HAL Parcel to allow access to all three of the Easterlings' merged parcels. The district court placed the easement at the western border of the HAL Parcel and set its width at twenty-six feet.

HAL timely appealed to this Court and contends the district court erred by denying its statute of limitations affirmative defense, granting the Easterlings' claim for an easement by necessity for all three of their parcels, and improperly determining the location and width of the easement.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Factual Background

The Easterlings own three contiguous parcels of land in Ammon, Idaho (hereinafter specified as the "Southern Parcel," "Eastern Parcel," and "Northern Parcel"). The Easterlings' property is currently landlocked and inaccessible by public road. There are subdivisions to the north and to the west of the Easterlings' property and a railroad track and a canal directly to the east. HAL owns the parcel of land directly to the south of the Easterlings' land. The HAL Parcel borders an arterial road-Sunnyside Road.

(Image Omitted)

The four parcels at issue in this case enjoyed unity of title between 1913 and 1914, and since that time, the parcels have undergone numerous conveyances. Before reciting the conveyances, in part, as relevant to our analysis below, it is useful to depict them in a diagram:

(Image Omitted)

As a preliminary note, Pumice Inc. ("Pumice") is not the same corporation as Producers Pumice, Inc ("Producers"). Instead, Producers is part of the same corporate structure as HAL. Moreover, the Easterlings are officers of Pumice. Edward Easterling became the President of Pumice as early as 1990, and Janice Easterling has been its Secretary/Treasurer since at least 1997.

All four parcels are traceable to the same 1891 Patent Deed that conveyed 160 acres to William F. Owen. By 1913, Owen conveyed to Joseph Anderson what is now the Southern, Northern, Eastern, and HAL Parcels. One year later, in 1914, Anderson, and his wife, conveyed the Northern Parcel to A.E. Empey-severing it from the Southern, Eastern and HAL Parcels. This is the first significant severance.

Twenty-five years later, in 1949, the successors to Anderson conveyed the then merged Southern, Eastern, and HAL Parcels to Ernest L. Martin. As depicted in an aerial photograph from 1946, the parcels were agricultural at this time. Five years later, in 1954, Martin conveyed the Southern and Eastern Parcels to Pumice-severing them from the HAL Parcel. This is the second significant severance. The record is unclear, but Pumice apparently also purchased the Northern Parcel in or around 1954-merging the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Parcels in fee simple.

Eleven years later, in 1965, Pumice leased the Southern Parcel to Producers who then accessed the property via the Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way for twenty-four years, from 1965 to 1999, without a recorded easement or license allowing that access. In 1999, Producers purchased the HAL Parcel from the Martin Family Trust. Around this same time, the Union Pacific stopped allowing use of the railroad right-of-way to access the Southern Parcel. Producers then removed a fence separating the Southern and HAL Parcels to continue its access from the HAL Parcel to the Southern Parcel it leased.

Five years later, in 2004, Pumice (by and through the Easterlings) terminated Producers' lease to use the Southern Parcel. That same year, Pumice (by and through the Easterlings) conveyed the Southern and Northern Parcels to the Easterlings. Three years later, in 2007, Pumice (by and through the Easterlings) conveyed the Eastern Parcel to F &E Land Company.

Four years after that, in 2011, Producers conveyed the HAL Parcel to PCBP Properties, Inc. which within months reconveyed the HAL Parcel to HAL. Finally, four years later, in 2015, F &E Land Company conveyed the Eastern Parcel to the Easterlings. At this point, the Easterlings owned the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Parcels as merged, and HAL owned the HAL Parcel- setting the stage for this litigation.

B. Procedural History

After unsuccessful negotiations between the Easterlings and HAL for an express easement over the HAL Parcel, the Easterlings filed a complaint in 2018, asking the district court to declare an easement by necessity across the HAL Parcel. The Easterlings alleged that their property was landlocked, with no ingress or egress available, and requested a sixty-foot-wide easement upon and over the HAL Parcel to connect with Sunnyside Road.

The Easterlings moved for summary judgment, asserting that: (1) their parcels had unity of title with the HAL Parcel; (2) at the time of severance, there was a reasonable necessity for an easement because once severed, there was no access to the Easterling parcels except over the HAL Parcel; and (3) there is great present necessity because there is currently no legal access to the Easterlings' merged parcels.

HAL requested a continuance, which the district court granted. HAL then filed a crossmotion for summary judgment. HAL first asserted that the Easterlings' claim for an easement by necessity was barred by the statute of limitations under Idaho Code section 5-204. In its reply brief, HAL extended the argument to Idaho Code section 5-224, arguing that Idaho's "catch-all" statute of limitations for civil actions applies to easements by necessity. HAL maintained that the four-year catch-all was triggered in 1954 when Pumice acquired the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Parcels. Edward Easterling had signed a declaration purporting personal knowledge that the parcels did not have "legal access" at that time. Thus, section 5-224 barred the Easterlings' claim.

Next, HAL argued that the Easterlings failed to meet their burden to prove an easement by necessity. Specifically, HAL asserts that there was not a reasonable necessity for an easement after severance because the Easterlings could access their property over the railroad tracks or via lands to the north and west of their property. Similarly, HAL claimed the Easterlings failed to show great present necessity for the easement because they have multiple options to ingress and egress their property including using the railroad access or obtaining an easement over another adjacent parcel.

The district court heard argument from the parties regarding their cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court first rejected HAL's affirmative defense that the statute of limitations had run on the Easterlings' easement claim under Idaho Code sections 5-204 and 5224. The district court found no appellate case in Idaho which had applied a statute of limitations to an easement by necessity claim. Furthermore, the district court reasoned that an easement by necessity "is presumed to exist upon severance of the property"; therefore, "[i]t makes little sense to apply a statute of limitations to an easement that is already presumed to exist." The district court further noted that public policy militated against use of a statute of limitations to defeat an easement by necessity claim. Applying a statute of limitations could result in leaving "property landlocked and without access which, for all intents and purposes, would render the property useless."

Next the district court turned to the Easterlings' claim for an easement by necessity-but only as to the Southern Parcel-noting there was not enough information in the record to address the Eastern Parcel on summary judgment. The district court began by stating the elements of an easement by necessity: "[i]n order to establish an implied easement by necessity, the claimant must show '(1) unity of title and subsequent separation of the dominant and servient estates; (2) necessity of the easement at the time of severance; and (3) great present necessity for the easement.'" (quoting Machado v. Ryan, 153 Idaho 212, 219, 280 P.3d 715, 722 (2012)). The district court did not address the first element, as the parties agreed unity of title was met as to the Southern and HAL Parcels. Turning to the second element, the district court found it was satisfied because the only...

To continue reading

Request your trial

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