Gayhart v. Corsi

• Decision Date: 06 May 2020
• Docket Number: S-19-0186
• Citation: 462 P.3d 904
• Parties: Tiphany L. GAYHART, TRUSTEE OF the TIPHANY L. GAYHART LIVING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 1, 2008, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Jack O. CORSI and Jack E. Corsi, Trustees of the Henry’s Mountain Land Trust; Sean E. Cooper and Amy Cooper, husband and wife, and as individuals; Gale D. Holtby and Barry Holtby, husband and wife, and as individuals; Brandon R. Scoffield and Heather Cherie Scoffield, husband and wife, and as individuals; Joseph P. Dwyer and Lauren Dwyer, husband and wife, Trustees of the Dwyer Family Trust, dated April 23, 2009; Mick C. Rammell and Kelsi Lashea Rammell, husband and wife, and as individuals; Justin D. Sandner and Teresa C. Sandner, husband and wife, and as individuals; Paige Savarese; Billy D. Adamson; and Kathleen B. Sanford, Appellees (Defendants).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

462 P.3d 904

Tiphany L. GAYHART, TRUSTEE OF the TIPHANY L. GAYHART LIVING TRUST DATED OCTOBER 1, 2008, Appellant (Plaintiff),

v.Jack O. CORSI and Jack E. Corsi, Trustees of the Henry’s Mountain Land Trust; Sean E. Cooper and Amy Cooper, husband and wife, and as individuals; Gale D. Holtby and Barry Holtby, husband and wife, and as individuals; Brandon R. Scoffield and Heather Cherie Scoffield, husband and wife, and as individuals; Joseph P. Dwyer and Lauren Dwyer, husband and wife, Trustees of the Dwyer Family Trust, dated April 23, 2009; Mick C. Rammell and Kelsi Lashea Rammell, husband and wife, and as individuals; Justin D. Sandner and Teresa C. Sandner, husband and wife, and as individuals; Paige Savarese; Billy D. Adamson; and Kathleen B. Sanford, Appellees (Defendants).

S-19-0186

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

May 6, 2020

Representing Appellant: James K. Sanderson, Sanderson Law Office, Afton, Wyoming.

Representing Appellees except Jack E. Corsi and Jack O. Corsi, who did not appear: Edward S. Bushnell, Mulligan Law Office, P.C., Jackson, Wyoming.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Tiphany L. Gayhart, trustee of the Tiphany L. Gayhart Living Trust, claimed to have an easement over a private road (Teala Drive) in a subdivision even though her property lies outside the subdivision. The district court concluded Ms. Gayhart did not have such easement. We affirm.

ISSUE

[¶2] Did the district court err in concluding Ms. Gayhart did not have a valid easement over Teala Drive?

FACTS

[¶3] In the 1990s, Jack O. and Jack E. Corsi (the Corsis), trustees of the Henry’s Mountain Land Trust, owned approximately 160 acres of land in Lincoln County: the SW1/4 of Section 13, Township 35 North, Range 119 West of the 6^th P.M.¹ In 1996, they divided the property into sixteen 10-acre lots. They used thirteen of the lots to create the Henry’s Mountain Estates subdivision. The Lincoln County Commissioners approved the subdivision, and the Corsis recorded the subdivision plat.

[¶4] The plat map shows all sixteen lots of the 160-acre parcel. However, three of the lots are marked "NOT PART OF SUBDIVISION." Those lots are located in the southeast, southwest and northwest corners of the 160-acre parcel. When the plat was recorded, the southeast and southwest lots had been sold to third parties. The Corsis retained ownership of the lot in the northwest corner, which abuts Lots 3 and 4 of the subdivision. Between 1996 and 2002, the Corsis sold all thirteen lots in the subdivision to third parties. In 2006, they sold the northwest parcel outside the subdivision to Ms. Gayhart.

[¶5] The entire 160-acre parcel is bordered on the south and west by county roads. There are three private roads in the subdivision which are shown on the plat—Henry’s Mountain Road, Teala Drive and Anne Road. Relevant here, Teala Drive is sixty feet wide and runs north-south through the middle of the subdivision from Lincoln County Road 113 to the intersection of Lots 2, 3, 5, and 6. It encumbers thirty feet of the eastern boundaries of Lots 5, 10 and 12 and thirty feet of the western boundaries of Lots 6, 9 and 13. The plat map also shows a sixty-foot access and public utility easement encumbering thirty feet of the northern boundaries of Lots 4 and 5, and thirty feet of the southern boundary of Lot 3 (hereinafter Access Road). A visual (not to scale) of Teala Drive and the Access Road in relation to the subdivision (Lots 1-13) and Ms. Gayhart’s property is helpful.

[¶6] The subdivision plat contains a "Certificate of Owners," which states in relevant part:

We the undersigned, do hereby certify that the subdivision of a part of the SW1/4 of Section 13, T35N, R119W, Lincoln County, Wyoming ... is [made] with the free consent and in accordance with the desires of the undersigned owners and proprietors of said lands; that the name of the subdivision shall be HENRY’S MOUNTAIN ESTATES; that Henry’s Mountain Road, Teala Drive and Anne Road, as shown on this plat, are private roads with a non-exclusive right-of-way granted to each lot owner;

....

that a right of ingress and egress and public utilities is reserved unto the grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns along Henry’s Mountain Road;

that a right of ingress and egress and public utilities is reserved unto the grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns along the south thirty (30) feet of Lot 3 and the north thirty (30) feet of Lots 4 and 5;

that a right of ingress and egress and public utilities is reserved unto the grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns along the west thirty (30) feet of Lots 4 and 11;

....

that the subdivision is subject to easements of sight and of record; that the Subdivision is subject to Covenants and Restrictions of record ... [.]

[¶7] When they recorded the plat, the Corsis also recorded a "Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Henry’s Mountain Estates" (Covenants). Section 11(a) of the Covenants states the Corsis "hereby grant[ ] and reserve[ ] for [their] benefit and the benefit of all owners the following easements on the property:

(a) An easement for ingress and egress access on, over and across the Common Roads within the property which is to be private, for the use and benefit of, and appurtenant to the property, all lot owners, their guests, invitees and licensees and other individuals or entities as may from time to time be granted permission to use the Common Roads by the Board of the Association.

The parties concede Teala Drive is a Common Road.

[¶8] In 2008, two years after they conveyed the northwest lot to Ms. Gayhart and six years after they transferred all lots in the subdivision to third parties, the Corsis executed a document purporting to give Ms. Gayhart an easement for ingress, egress and all utilities along Teala Drive. Three months later, in February 2009, they purported to give her an easement encumbering thirty feet of the northern boundary of Lot 4 (part of the Access Road).

[¶9] Subdivision lot owners denied Ms. Gayhart access across Teala Drive and the Access Road. She sued the Corsis and the owners of Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, and 13 (Lot Owners) seeking an order declaring her to have valid easements over Teala Drive and the Access Road. She also sought quiet title to these easements and an injunction prohibiting the Corsis and the Lot Owners from impeding, blocking or prohibiting her access to her property over the easements. The Lot Owners filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that Ms. Gayhart did not have valid easements over Teala Drive or the Access Road. Ms. Gayhart and the Lot Owners filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

[¶10] The district court granted in part and denied in part the parties’ motions. It decided Ms. Gayhart had a valid easement over the Access Road but not over Teala Drive. Ms. Gayhart appealed from the latter decision. The Lot Owners did not file a cross-appeal from the district court’s decision that Ms. Gayhart has a valid easement over the Access Road, and explicitly state in their brief they are not challenging that decision. The only issue before us is whether Ms. Gayhart has a valid easement over Teala Drive.²

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶11] We generally review a district court’s grant of summary judgment as follows:

We review a district court’s order granting summary judgment de novo and afford no deference to the district court’s ruling. Thornock v. PacifiCorp , 2016 WY 93, ¶ 10, 379 P.3d 175, 179 (Wyo. 2016). This Court reviews the same materials and uses the same legal standard as the district court. Id . The record is assessed from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion ..., and we give a party opposing summary judgment the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record. Id . A material fact is one that would have the effect of establishing or refuting an essential element of the cause of action or defense asserted by the parties. Id .

Wyoming Jet Ctr., LLC v. Jackson Hole Airport Bd. , 2019 WY 6, ¶ 10, 432 P.3d 910, 914 (Wyo. 2019) (quoting Reichert v. Daugherty , 2018 WY 103, ¶ 11, 425 P.3d 990, 994 (Wyo. 2018) ). We also review de novo the district court’s interpretation of covenants imposing restrictions or conditions on the use of land. Gumpel v. Copperleaf Homeowners Ass’n, Inc. , 2017 WY 46, ¶ 25, 393 P.3d 1279, 1289 (Wyo. 2017) (citing Wimer v. Cook , 2016 WY 29, ¶ 21, 369 P.3d 210, 218 (Wyo. 2016) ).

DISCUSSION

[¶12] Neither party argues there is a disputed issue of material fact to be decided at trial. Both parties assert the subdivision documents are unambiguous and we agree. Resolution of this case, then, depends entirely on interpretation of the subdivision plat and Covenants.

1. District Court’s Decision

[¶13] The district court decided § 11(a) of the Covenants reserved to the Corsis "[an] easement for ingress and egress access on, over and across the Common Roads within the property," including Teala Drive. Although it indicated the easement over Teala Drive was an appurtenant easement, which is normally transferrable with the dominant estate, it nevertheless concluded the Corsis could not transfer the easement to Ms. Gayhart because it was a "personal" easement.

[¶14] We agree with the district court that Ms. Gayhart does not have a valid easement over Teala Drive, but for different reasons. It is unnecessary to review the district court’s conclusion that the Teala Drive easement was both appurtenant and "personal," and it is unnecessary to review the district court’s approach to transferability. As we will explain, the plain language of the easement and the Covenants demonstrates the easement over Teala Drive was to benefit the subdivision, not property outside the subdivision. Ms. Gayhart’s property lies outside the subdivision. The Teala Drive easement clearly is appurtenant to lots in the subdivision and is transferrable with those lots. The problem for Ms. Gayhart is that the easement is not...