Guthrie v. Hardy

• Decision Date: 23 July 2001
• Docket Number: No. 00-170.,00-170.
• Citation: 2001 MT 122,305 Mont. 367,28 P.3d 467
• Parties: Joseph A. GUTHRIE, Jr., and Carol W. Guthrie, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Brett F. HARDY, Defendant and Appellant. Chester L. Krage, Diane D. Krage, Joseph A. Guthrie, Jr., and Carol W. Guthrie, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Brett F. Hardy, Linda Marie Daley Kline k/n/a Linda M. Westby, Mervin O. Eriksson, Tolly J. Eriksson, Walter W. Miller, Marvin L. Wallin, Paulette Wallin, Matthew K. Arno, and Kenneth D. Hayes, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

28 P.3d 467

2001 MT 122

305 Mont. 367

Joseph A. GUTHRIE, Jr., and Carol W. Guthrie, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Brett F. HARDY, Defendant and Appellant.

Chester L. Krage, Diane D. Krage, Joseph A. Guthrie, Jr., and Carol W. Guthrie, Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. Brett F. Hardy, Linda Marie Daley Kline k/n/a Linda M. Westby, Mervin O. Eriksson, Tolly J. Eriksson, Walter W. Miller, Marvin L. Wallin, Paulette Wallin, Matthew K. Arno, and Kenneth D. Hayes, Defendants and Appellants.

No. 00-170.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs September 21, 2000.

Decided July 23, 2001.

For Appellant: George C. DeVoe, Missoula, MT.

For Respondents: Robert Terrazas, Mulroney, Delaney & Scott, Missoula, MT.

Justice JAMES C. NELSON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

¶ 1 Following trial of consolidated cases, the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, entered findings of facts, conclusions of law, and order from which the Appellants appeal. The remaining Defendants and Appellants, Brett F. Hardy, Walter W. Miller, and Matthew K. Arno (hereinafter Hardy, Miller and Arno, or Appellants), contend that the District Court erred in relying on findings unsupported by evidence, reached conclusions contrary to law, and abused its discretion in issuing an injunction.

¶ 2 We affirm and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

¶ 3 Recognizing that superfluity does not vitiate, see § 1-3-228, MCA, we nevertheless reduce Appellants' 144-word statement of their first issue to:

1. Did the District Court determine the scope of Appellants' easement, and that Appellants exceeded the scope and therefore burdened the servient estate, based on substantial credible evidence?

Appellants also raise the following issues which we have likewise tailored for clarity:

2. Did the District Court apply the correct law in determining the proper scope of the Appellants' easement?

3. Did the District Court err in limiting Hardy's use of the easement to ingress and egress, and therefore improperly enjoin him from performing maintenance, repair and improvements?

4. Did the District Court err when it concluded that the use of the easement by more than three residences would overburden the servient estate?

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

¶ 4 This dispute involves real property located in Missoula County in the Nine Mile Valley near Huson, Montana. Specifically, the property dispute involves parcels of land and appurtenant easements located in the northwest and southwest quarters of Section 12, Township 15 North, Range 23 West, P.M.M.

¶ 5 The conflict at issue basically began in 1995, when Hardy and Miller sought to improve a portion of an easement located on Joseph A. and Carol W. Guthrie's (the Guthries) property located in the northwest quarter of Section 12. The Guthries own approximately 90 acres of the northwest quarter, which they purchased in 1990, and Chester L. and Diane D. Krage (the Krages) own approximately 70 acres, which they purchased in 1995. The parcels owned by each are irregular in shape, and generally conform to the topography, which is wooded and hilly. The Krage property occupies the northwest region of the quarter, whereas the Guthrie property covers the northeast, southeast and extends to the southwest corner of the quarter section.

¶ 6 No one disputes that Hardy was granted an easement across the northwest quarter in 1977, when he acquired the entire southwest quarter of Section 12 from Oscar and Marilyn Hauge, who are the Guthries' and Krages' predecessors. The easement also included a right of way through Section 1, which lies north of Section 12, where it leaves a public road, Pine Meadows Lane, heads south across Nine Mile Creek, and enters the northeast corner of the northwest quarter of Section 12. The Hauges also reserved an easement across Hardy's property in 1977. The 1977 Warranty Deed describes the easements as follows:

TOGETHER WITH an easement over and across the Southeast one-quarter of the Southwest one-quarter of Section 1 and the Northwest quarter (NW1/4) of Section 12, Township 15 North, Range 23 West, which easement shall be from Pine Meadows Lane across the Nine Mile Creek and thereafter shall cross the North 60 feet of the East 511.20 feet of the Northwest quarter (NW1/4) thence South along the East 60 feet of the Northwest quarter to a point which intersects a road presently situated on said premises and which road will provide access to the property agreed to be bought and sold.

Reserving unto the Grantors, their heirs, successors and assigns an easement over and across the property above described along the present Cromwell Creek Road and an existing logging road connected thereto which generally crosses the North one-half (N1/2) of the Southwest one-quarter (SW1/4) of said Section 12, Township 15 North, Range 23, P.M.M.

¶ 7 After acquiring the southwest quarter of Section 12, Hardy subdivided it into eight 20-acre parcels in 1981, and eventually sold two parcels each to the Appellants Miller (the 40-acre southwest quarter in 1986), and Arno (the 40-acre northwest quarter in 1995). At the time this dispute arose, Hardy and Miller had also become joint owners of the 40-acre northeast quarter of the southwest quarter, which lies directly south of the Guthries' property. Both Miller and Arno would eventually join Hardy in this dispute in seeking to improve the easement. All three currently reside year-around on their respective parcels of land. No residences have been built on the northwest quarter, although the facts indicate that Hardy and Miller have cleared two building sites.

¶ 8 The facts indicate that up until the time this dispute arose, Hardy, Miller and Arno accessed their respective parcels from the south, and the Guthries and the Krages accessed their properties from the west via an access point not at issue. The Guthries and Krages, however, use a portion of the existing easement road to access their respective properties.

¶ 9 The original easement road was an old narrow logging road, which generally meandered through the northwest quarter, with sharp switchbacks, until it finally exited through the southeast corner of the quarter section. In 1995, Hardy and Miller sought to improve the easement at issue so that it would accommodate regular year-around access to the southwest quarter. By then, a steep "short cut" had been established that cut off a loop of the original road, and a new exit road leading into the southwest quarter diverged from what had become the Guthrie's driveway.

¶ 10 It was the latter portion of the old logging road—which had by then become overgrown with trees and was fenced off—that Hardy and Miller attempted to access via the Guthries' driveway in June of 1995. Neither Hardy nor Miller had received permission from the Guthries to enter their property and explore the old logging road. Hardy had, apparently, informed the Guthries of his intentions. In turn, the Guthries alleged they refused to give him permission to access their property. A confrontation ensued between Carol Guthrie and Hardy and Miller, after they entered the Guthries' driveway and drove across their lawn.

¶ 11 After the confrontation, a general cloud of friction descended on the parties regarding exactly what Hardy, as the easement owner, could or could not do as far as expanding or improving the easement road. In part, the dispute involved the access road from the north, where it crossed the Nine Mile Creek, as well as a small tributary creek. The small wooden bridge across the latter often was under water during the spring and therefore impassable. Also, the larger bridge over the main creek was in need of repair, and, following a general improvement by the Guthries, fell into disrepair again in the midst of this dispute following a particularly high runoff in 1997. The recommended gross vehicle weight for the bridge was 6,000 pounds. The Guthries secured the bridge from public use with a locked gate.

¶ 12 Throughout this dispute, the Guthries and Krages voiced their concern that the Appellants wished, in fact, to extensively improve the easement road to accommodate further residential development as well as logging in the southwest quarter. Thus, they contended that more than merely establishing a reliable alternative access route for the benefit of the three Appellants was at issue. Rather, they claimed their rights would be burdened by the planned increased use placed upon the easement, which would necessitate a dramatic increase in the size and quality of the road itself to sustain such use. The facts indicate that although entering the northwest quarter as a 60-foot easement, the existing road identified in the deed was at best 12 to 14 feet wide, and simply could not, according to uncontested expert opinion, be expanded to accommodate heavy use without a major reconstruction or rerouting effort. The Guthries and the Krages—who would testify that they wished to place some of their respective property into conservation easements—argued that such an expansion of the easement was clearly not contemplated at the time the easement was granted, and was not supported by any historical use of that nature.

¶ 13 On the other hand, Hardy would argue—and continues to argue—that the easement was unrestricted and that such improvements and expanded use by him and his successors was clearly contemplated. According to his testimony throughout this dispute, he contends that it is his easement—i.e., his property right—and he can therefore do with it whatever he pleases. He points to the fact that his grantor, Hauge, had subdivided his quarter as well—into seven tracts—which would eventually come into the hands of two owners, the Krages and the Guthries. Further development was clearly on the minds of both the grantor and grantee at the time the easement came into existence in 1977, according to Hardy.

¶ 14 Following a January 10, 1996 hearing, ...