Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp.
Decision Date | 09 December 2010 |
Docket Number | Nos. S-09-0206, S-09-0207.,s. S-09-0206, S-09-0207. |
Citation | 2010 WY 160,245 P.3d 293 |
Parties | William S. HANSULD and Tia J. Hansuld, Appellants (Plaintiffs), v. LARIAT DIESEL CORPORATION, and Marvin Piel, Appellees (Defendants). Lariat Diesel Corporation, and Marvin Piel, Appellants (Defendants), v. William S. Hansuld and Tia J. Hansuld, Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing William S. Hansuld and Tia J. Hansuld: Larry W. Harrington of Harrington Law Firm, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.
Representing Lariat Diesel Corporation and Marvin Piel: Thomas M. Hogan, Casper, Wyoming.
Before KITE, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL, VOIGT,* and BURKE, JJ.
[¶ 1] In these consolidated appeals, two adjoining landowners dispute two separate easements. In appeal No. S-09-0206, the Hansulds appeal a district court finding that they do not have an easement for a water line across the property of Lariat Diesel Corporation. We reverse.
[¶ 2] In appeal No. S-09-0207, Lariat Diesel Corporation and its president, Marvin Piel, appeal a district court's ruling declining to require a precise description in metes and bounds of the location of an access easement across the Hansulds' property. We reverse.
[¶ 3] We begin with the facts because both appeals share common facts. This is the second time these parties have been before this Court. See Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo.2003) ( Hansuld I ). In Hansuld I, this Court related the following facts:
Hansuld I, ¶¶ 4-12, 81 P.3d at 217-18.
[¶ 4] The Hansulds appealed the finding of the existence of an implied access easement. While the appeal was pending, Lariat filed a motion to show cause why the Hansulds should not be held in contempt for not allowing adequate ingress and egress along the implied access easement to its property. The district court held an evidentiary hearing on the motion and, on March 3, 2003, issued its decision letter determining the Hansulds were not in contempt because they had established a passageway sufficient to accommodate the semi-tractor trailers needing to travel to and from the Lariat property.
[¶ 5] The Hansuld I Court affirmed the district court decision finding an implied access easement. Since Hansuld I was decided, the parties have continued to feud. A water line crosses Lariat's property before reaching the Hansulds' property. A valve on Lariat's property controls the flow of water to the Hansulds' property. In January 2006, Piel turned off the Hansulds' water, claiming that no easement existed in favor of the Hansulds' property for the water line. The Hansulds brought the instant legal action, seeking, among other things, an injunction and a declaration that they had an implied water line easement across Lariat's property. Lariat counterclaimed seeking, among other things, declaratory relief for a precise legal description of the location and extent of its implied access easement. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
[¶ 6] After a hearing, the district court granted summary judgment to Lariat on the issue of the implied water line easement. The district court found there was no intent on the part of LLC, the common owner, to create an easement for the water line and that such an easement was not necessary because the Hansulds had ready access to the water main and could easily install their own water line.
[¶ 7] The district court granted summary judgment to the Hansulds on Lariat's request for clarification of the exact location of the access easement, deciding the claim was barred by collateral estoppel and res judicata in that the same issue and claim was before the district court in Hansuld I. The district court then certified its summary judgment rulings as immediately appealable pursuant to W.R.C.P 54(b).1 The parties cross-appealed.
[¶ 8] The Hansulds present the following issues for this Court's review:
[¶ 9] This is an appeal from a summary judgment. We engage in a de novo review of summary judgments. Glenn v. Union Pacific R.R. Co., 2008 WY 16, ¶ 6, 176 P.3d 640, 642 (Wyo.2008). We use the same criteria and materials as the district court. Fayard v. Design Comm. of the Homestead Subdivision, 2010 WY 51, ¶ 9, 230 P.3d 299, 302 (Wyo.2010); McGarvey v. Key Prop. Mgmt., 2009 WY 84, ¶ 10, 211 P.3d 503, 506 (Wyo.2009). Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. W.R.C.P. 56(c);Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, Inc., 2002 WY 21, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Wyo.2002).
[¶ 10] Wyoming will recognize an implied easement across another person's property under certain circumstances. Shirran v. Shirran, 987 P.2d 140, 142 (Wyo.1999); Beaudoin v. Kibbie, 905 P.2d 939, 941-42 (Wyo.1995); Corbett v. Whitney, 603 P.2d 1291, 1293-94 (Wyo.1979). Our goal in determining whether an easement exists by implication is to discern the intent of the parties:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Miner v. Jesse & Grace, LLC
...easement will be recognized where the easement is consistent with the intentions of the parties to a conveyance. Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp. (Hansuld II), 2010 WY 160, ¶ 10, 245 P.3d 293, 298 (Wyo.2010). We have explained: The creation of easements by implication is an attempt to infer t......
-
O'Hare v. Hulme
...continuous; and (3) the claimed easement is necessary and beneficial to the enjoyment of the parcel previously benefitted. Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp. , 2010 WY 160, ¶ 10, 245 P.3d 293, 298 (Wyo. 2010) ( Hansuld II ) (quoting Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp. , 2003 WY 165, ¶ 15, 81 P.3d 21......
- Mattheis Co. v. Richard J. Mulligan, Individually, & Mulligan Law Office, PC
-
Wheeldon v. ELK Feed Grounds House, LLC
...of the parcel previously benefitted. O'Hare v. Hulme , 2020 WY 31, ¶ 30, 458 P.3d 1225, 1237 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp. , 2010 WY 160, ¶ 10, 245 P.3d 293, 298 (Wyo. 2010) ( Hansuld II )). Only the third element, "necessity," is in dispute here. The Wheeldons argue t......