Farrar v. City of Newberg
Decision Date | 29 December 2021 |
Docket Number | A170004 |
Citation | 316 Or.App. 698,504 P.3d 1282 |
Parties | Constance FARRAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF NEWBERG, Defendant-Respondent. |
Court | Oregon Court of Appeals |
Jeffery S. Frasier and Chenoweth Law Group, PC filed the briefs for appellant.
Jonathan M. Radmacher and McEwen Gisvold LLP filed the brief for respondent.
Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Shorr, Judge, and Powers, Judge.
Plaintiff filed this action for injunctive relief against defendant, City of Newberg, asserting that the city should be prohibited from paving an easement on her property that the city uses to access water reservoir facilities. After a bench trial, the trial court denied plaintiff's request for an injunction and granted the city's request for a declaration giving the city the right to pave the easement. The trial court also granted the city's request for a declaration prohibiting plaintiff from using the easement for anything other than ingress and egress. On appeal, plaintiff raises three assignments of error challenging both the trial court's decisions surrounding the paving of the easement and declaration prohibiting plaintiff from using the easement for anything but ingress and egress to her property. We summarily reject plaintiff's first two assignments of error relating to the paving of the easement and reverse the portion of the declaration forbidding plaintiff from using the easement except for ingress and egress.
Plaintiff requests that we exercise our discretion to conduct de novo review. We decline to do so because this is not an exceptional case. See ORS 19.415(3)(b) ( ); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) ( ).
Plaintiff owns property in unincorporated Yamhill County along Highway 219. The city owns adjacent property that has two reservoirs. A prior owner of the property granted the city an easement in 1984. The express easement provides, in part:
(Uppercase in original.)
In her first and second assignments of error, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in (1) granting the city's declaration that the city has the right to pave the easement and (2) denying plaintiff's request for an injunction prohibiting the city from paving the easement. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the city's obligation to "maintain" the easement allows the city to pave the road. Plaintiff further asserts that the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that paving the easement is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the easement, viz. , ingress and egress.
We review the interpretation of an express easement for errors of law. Tressel v. Williams , 291 Or. App. 215, 222, 420 P.3d 31 (2018). In construing an easement, our task "is to discern the nature and scope of the easement's purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner." Watson v. Banducci , 158 Or. App. 223, 230, 973 P.2d 395 (1999). Whether proposed changes are reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial