Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc.
| Decision Date | 10 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. 2008AP2028.,2008AP2028. |
| Citation | 770 N.W.2d 749,2009 WI App 102 |
| Parties | Barbara C. GRYGIEL and Janet M. Nahorn, Plaintiffs-Appellants<SMALL><SUP>†</SUP></SMALL> v. MONCHES FISH & GAME CLUB, INC., Defendant-Respondent, Karl J. Scheife, Defendant. |
| Court | Wisconsin Court of Appeals |
On behalf of the plaintiffs-appellants, the cause was submitted on the briefs of John A. Rothstein of Quarles & Brady, LLP, Milwaukee.
On behalf of the defendant-respondent, the cause was submitted on the brief of Lance S. Grady of Grady, Hayes & Neary, LLC, Waukesha.
Before BROWN, C.J., SNYDER and NEUBAUER, JJ.
Barbara C. Grygiel and Janet M. Nahorn (together, Grygiel) appeal from an order for a summary judgment dismissing their claims against Karl J. Scheife and Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc. (the Club).1 Grygiel asserts that the circuit court's interpretation of the law of easements impermissibly expanded the scope and purpose of the easement that provides access over Grygiel's property to the Club's land. We disagree and affirm the order of the circuit court.2
¶ 2 Grygiel's land in Washington county consists of thirty-two acres and meets at one corner with 120 acres owned by the Club. The Club benefits from an easement across Grygiel's property; specifically, the easement is a forty-foot-wide strip of land granted "for the purpose of ingress and egress as a means of access" to the Club's property. In 1990, the Club filed a lawsuit seeking a determination of rights under the written easement. In February 1991, the circuit court issued a decision, holding as follows:
(1) [The Club] has an easement for ingress and egress to their property over the described 40 foot parcel per the original easement, but has no other interest in the parcel.
(2) [The Club] may not allow parking of vehicles on the easement.
(3) Vehicles may turn around on the easement providing they do not go off the 40 foot easement.
(4) The easement may be used by members of [the Club], its invitees, service vehicles, and emergency vehicles.
(5) [The Club] may not extend the use of the easement to any other parties than those named in the preceding paragraph.
(6) [The Club] may improve its roadway upon the parcel described in the easement but the improvements shall only be for purposes of ingress and egress.
In its rationale, the circuit court stated that the Club "cannot grant the right to use this easement as a means of gaining access to other properties by parties who are not using [the Club's] property." The court stated that the Club "has no right to grant use of the easement to some farmer who is not going onto [the Club's] lands for any purpose but simply using the easement to get to his own property."3
¶ 3 In November 2006, Scheife and several others were hunting on a forty acre parcel adjacent to the Club's property. This forty acre parcel, along with an additional 103 acres to the south, is owned by the Unrein family. Scheife rents a home on the Unrein property, and his lease gives him hunting privileges on all of the Unrein land. He is also a member of the Club and hunts there about twelve times a year.
¶ 4 On November 24, 2006, Scheife and several other hunters used the easement to get to the Club and, from the Club's property, they crossed to hunt on the adjacent Unrein land. It is undisputed that some of the hunters with Scheife were not members of the Club. It is also undisputed that the hunters did not hunt on Club property that morning, but rather parked at the Club and went over onto Unrein property to hunt. Afterward, they went to Scheife's home and a member of the hunting party drove Scheife off of Unrein property and back around to the easement, with the intention of crossing the easement to retrieve Scheife's truck from the Club's property. When they approached, they saw that Grygiel had blocked their path across the easement. Grygiel then called the sheriff's department and a deputy arrived shortly thereafter. Scheife then retrieved his car from the Club.
¶ 5 Grygiel sued the Club and Scheife for violation of the 1991 judgment, trespass, and breach of the easement contract. Grygiel moved for partial summary judgment, seeking a declaration that (1) the 1991 judgment was binding on the parties, (2) the Club did not have the right to grant use of the easement to third parties who sought access to property other than the Club's, and (3) the Club members themselves could not use the easement to access any property other than the Club's. The court heard arguments on the motion and, in a decision filed February 5, 2008, held that questions of fact precluded summary judgment.
¶ 6 On March 28, 2008, Grygiel filed a new motion for summary judgment, asserting that no material facts were in dispute and seeking judgment as a matter of law. The circuit court held a hearing on the motion in April and in an oral ruling dismissed Grygiel's cause of action for enforcement of the 1991 judgment. The court took arguments on the remaining issues under advisement and subsequently issued a written order dismissing the trespass and breach of easement claims. Grygiel followed with this appeal.
¶ 7 All of Grygiel's claims were resolved by summary judgment in the circuit court. We review a circuit court's order granting summary judgment de novo, applying the same methodology as the circuit court. See City of Janesville v. C.C. Midwest, Inc., 2007 WI 93, ¶ 13, 302 Wis.2d 599, 734 N.W.2d 428. We affirm a summary judgment when there are no genuine issues of material fact and a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Hoida, Inc. v. M & I Midstate Bank, 2006 WI 69, ¶ 16, 291 Wis.2d 283, 717 N.W.2d 17. Grygiel moved for summary judgment, but the court sua sponte granted judgment to the Club. A circuit court may grant summary judgment in favor of the nonmoving party if the nonmoving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See WIS. STAT § 802.08(6) (2007-08).4 Here, the parties generally agree that there are no material facts in dispute; rather, the dispute involves the application of relevant law to the facts.
¶ 8 Grygiel argues that the circuit court either misconstrued or ignored the holding in Millen v. Thomas, 201 Wis.2d 675, 550 N.W.2d 134 (Ct.App.1996), by giving the dominant estate the power to expand an easement against the wishes of the servient estate and, further, that civil trespass law prohibits the use of the easement by the Club's members when the intent of the member is to access non-Club property. Grygiel argues that the circuit court's decision departed from established property law principles. An easement is an interest in land that is in the possession of another. Kallas v. B & G Realty, 169 Wis.2d 412, 419, 485 N.W.2d 278 (Ct.App. 1992). It creates two separate property interests: the dominant estate, which enjoys the privileges granted by the easement, and the servient estate, which permits the exercise of those privileges. Wendt v. Blazek, 2001 WI App 91, ¶ 10, 242 Wis.2d 722, 626 N.W.2d 78. The deed granting the easement defines the relative rights of the landowners. Gojmerac v. Mahn, 2002 WI App 22, ¶ 24, 250 Wis.2d 1, 640 N.W.2d 178. It is the essence of an appurtenant easement that it exists for the benefit of the dominant estate only. Id., ¶ 22.
¶ 9 Grygiel also offers extensive case law, mostly from foreign jurisdictions, and treatises on property law to emphasize that an easement "may not be used for the benefit of property other than the dominant estate." See, e.g., RESTATEMENT (THIRD) PROPERTY: SERVITUDES § 4.11 (2000). Indeed, the "classic rule" is that "an easement may only be used to benefit the dominant parcel [and] may not be used to access an adjacent, nondominant parcel." Pamela McClaran, Extending the Benefit of an Easement: A Closer Look at a Classic Rule-Brown v. Voss, 105 Wash.2d 366, 715 P.2d 514 (1986), 62 WASH. L.REV. 295, 295-96 (1987). A strict interpretation of that rule leads to the conclusion that any extension of the benefit to a nondominant parcel is a misuse and, accordingly, a trespass. Id. at 296.
¶ 10 Grygiel's primary argument is that the circuit court's reliance on Millen flew in the face of controlling law. The Millens sought to declare void an easement across their property that gave neighboring property owner Thomas access to Beaver Lake. Millen, 201 Wis.2d at 678, 550 N.W.2d 134. The Millens claimed that Thomas' merger of her dominant estate with adjoining parcels improperly enlarged the dominant estate and thus expanded the easement. Id. In our decision, we hearkened back to well-established law stating that "an easement for a specified purpose may not be enlarged such that an added burden is placed upon the servient estate." Millen, 201 Wis.2d at 685, 550 N.W.2d 134 (citing S.S. Kresge Co. v. Winkelman Realty Co., 260 Wis. 372, 376-77, 50 N.W.2d 920 (1952)) (emphasis added). Focusing the inquiry on the "actual burden imposed," we held that the "mere fact" that the dominant estate was expanded to nondominant parcels did not resolve the issue. See Millen, 201 Wis.2d at 685, 550 N.W.2d 134.
¶ 11 In its rationale for granting summary judgment to the Club, the circuit court turned to the Millen court's discussion of the burden imposed on the servient estate. The circuit court stated that "while [Millen] also deals with ownership of abutting lands, the rationale is directly on point in this case." The court held that "[t]he activities engaged in by [Scheife] in this case did not enlarge the easement and placed no added burden upon the servient estate." It concluded that Scheife "properly used the easement" to gain "access to the dominant estate," and the fact that "he subsequently entered the adjoining property, with permission, does not impermissibly extend the use of the easement."
¶ 12 Grygiel asserts that Millen's "added burden" analysis was limited to the circumstances presented there; specifically, whether the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club Inc
...on whether Scheife's use of the easement created an additional burden on the servient estate, Grygiel's property. Grygiel v. Monches Fish & Game Club, Inc., 2009 WI App 102, ¶ 14, 320 Wis.2d 550, 770 N.W.2d 749. The court of appeals concluded:[T]he undisputed facts indicate that when Club m......
- State v. Bautista