JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORPORATION v. ALPENHOF LODGE …

• Decision Date: 14 April 2005
• Docket Number: No. 04-142.,04-142.
• Citation: 109 P.3d 555,2005 WY 46
• Parties: JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation, Appellant v. ALPENHOF LODGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership, Appellee
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

2005 WY 46

109 P.3d 555

JACKSON HOLE MOUNTAIN RESORT CORPORATION, a Wyoming corporation, Appellant v. ALPENHOF LODGE ASSOCIATES, a California Limited Partnership, Appellee

No. 04-142.

Supreme Court of Wyoming. APRIL TERM, A.D. 2005.

April 14, 2005

Representing Appellant: Joe M. Teig and Paula A. Fleck of Holland & Hart, LLP, Jackson, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee: Gerald R. Mason and Douglas J. Mason of Mason & Mason, P.C., Pinedale, Wyoming.

Before HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN and VOIGT, JJ., and GRANT, D.J., and STEBNER, D.J. Ret.

VOIGT, Justice.

[¶1] This is an appeal from a declaratory judgment entered against the servient owner in an easement dispute. We affirm.

ISSUES

[¶2] We will restate the issues as follows:

1. Is the owner of land burdened by a defined-width easement prohibited from making temporary use of the land by Lamb v. Wyoming Game and Fish Com'n, 985 P.2d 433 (Wyo. 1999)?

2. Does the proposed use of the land burdened by the defined-width easement substantially interfere with the dominant owner's reasonable use of the easement?

FACTS

[¶3] Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corporation (the appellant) owns certain property in Teton County. In 1975, the appellant sold adjacent property to Rusticana, Inc. (Rusticana), also granting to Rusticana an easement over the appellant's property as follows:

Seller hereby agrees to grant to purchaser an easement of 20 feet width along the west side of Lot 2, Tracts X and Y, for the purpose of constructing a walkway not to exceed 6 feet in width.

In 1988, Rusticana sold the property and its easement rights to Alpenhof Lodge Associates (the appellee).

[¶4] The appellant developed plans for certain improvements to its property, which plans included "encroachment" upon the easement. The appellee objected to the project and, when the dispute could not be resolved, the appellant filed this declaratory judgment action.¹ The appellant sought summary judgment on the ground that, as servient owner, it had retained the right to use the easement in any manner that did not substantially interfere with the appellee's use of the easement. See Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P.2d 722, 730 (Wyo. 1976)

. Attached to the summary judgment motion was the affidavit of the project's architect, describing the "encroachment" as a building overhang nine feet above ground, supported by nine columns.

[¶5] The appellee responded with its own motion for partial summary judgment directed specifically to the issue of the support columns. A reply affidavit of the project's architect stated that the overhang would extend only ten feet into the twenty-foot wide easement. The appellee then filed the affidavit of another architect, contending that an overhang nine feet high would not leave sufficient clearance for the appellee's proposed walkway. After a hearing, the district court denied the appellant's motion and granted partial summary judgment to the appellee, finding that the support columns would be an inappropriate encroachment on the easement. The appellant then filed a motion for leave to amend its complaint to substitute a cantilevered structure unsupported by columns.²

[¶6] In preparing for trial, the appellee deposed the appellant's architect. The appellee then filed another motion for partial summary judgment in regard to the following additional "encroachments" discovered during that deposition:

(a) The roof of the basement will extend out into the easement for 10 feet and will be above the surface for the entire length of the easement. . . .

(b) The roof will be used as a concrete sidewalk with two sets of stairs, handrails and supporting walls between the level of the sidewalk and the surface of the easement. . . . There is also a proposed concrete pad at the north end of the walkway. . . .

(c) Trees will be planted in the remaining ten feet of the easement. . . .

(d) The grade of the surface of the easement from east to west will be permanently changed to accommodate the sidewalk and to thereby move all of the slope originally in the 20 feet width to the remaining 10 feet of width. . . .

(e) The grade of the south portion of the easement will be permanently changed to accommodate a roadway requiring cuts and fills. The roadway will be paved with asphalt. . . .

(f) The east length of the easement will be excavated, during construction, to a depth of at least three feet for installation of several underground utilities. . . . Repair or maintenance of those utilities may require future excavation.

(g) Scaffolding may have to be erected at a width of 15 feet into the easement during construction and for any future maintenance of the cantilevered portions of the construction. . . .

(h) The roof slopes are designed to deliver snow and waste water into the uncovered remaining 10 feet width of the easement. Waste water from the roof will be guttered but waste water (rain) from the side of the building will be directed into said ten feet. No plan exists for handling this water. Future, but not present plans, will purportedly seek to hold all of the snow on the roof, . . . but until a specific plan is designed and approved, its effectiveness cannot be judged. [N]o changes to the plans other than removal of the columns are contemplated. . . . At any rate, no waste water or snow should be allowed to be diverted onto the surface of the easement.

(i) The construction of the basement will require excavation for more than ten feet into the easement.

[¶7] After a bench trial, the district court issued detailed findings of fact and conclusions of law and entered judgment in favor of the appellee. The district court found the easement language to be unambiguous and then made the following individual findings:

1. Construction of a proposed fire lane angling across the southern portion of the easement would require significant modification of natural grade, would result in a retaining wall across the easement that would be a substantial barrier to use of the easement as a walkway, and would violate the appellee's rights in the easement.

2. Excavation of the basement and construction of the cantilevered structure would require total obstruction of the easement for a period of eighteen to nineteen months and would violate the appellee's rights in the easement.

3. The proposed basement would extend ten feet into the twenty-foot wide easement for the entire length of the building, would have a concrete roof to be utilized as a sidewalk, would require steps and cheek walls and rails, would operate as a barrier between the sidewalk and the backfilled grade, would be above finished grade, and would violate the appellee's rights in the easement.

4. The project would drastically change the natural grade of the easement because the fire lane would require a cut bank and leveling with a retaining wall, and because the basement roof/sidewalk would require leveling of half the easement with the remainder made much steeper, which would substantially impair the use of the remaining portion by the appellee, and would violate the appellee's rights in the easement.

5. The placement of underground utilities in the half of the easement not taken up with the proposed basement may require surface facilities, which surface facilities would violate the appellee's rights in the easement, as would future repair and maintenance of the underground utilities if such would disrupt surface use.

6. The proposed planting of trees and shrubs in the half of the easement not taken up with the proposed basement would violate the appellee's rights in the easement.

7. The proposed cantilevered building would substantially restrict natural light to the easement area and, if the appellee constructs a meandering walkway that utilizes the entire width of the easement, would make the use of the easement substantially less convenient and beneficial to the appellee.

8. The roof design of the proposed building will divert water and snow onto the half of the easement not taken up with the proposed structure and ameliorative devices should be required to avoid that result.

9. The appellee's proposed ADA-compliant meandering walkway requires the entire twenty-foot width of the easement and may require elevation above present grade in some areas, is an appropriate use of the easement so long as the walkway surface does not exceed six feet, and does not exceed the appellee's rights in the easement.

[¶8] Based upon these findings of fact, the district court then reached the following conclusions of law:

17. [The appellee] is entitled to the unencumbered use of the entire surface of the easement. The [appellant's] right to use the easement in any way that does not substantially interfere with the purpose of the easement under Bard Ranch Co. v. Weber, 557 P2d 722 (Wyo. 1976) does not allow the placement of any permanent or temporary objects on the surface of the easement under the doctrine of Lamb v. Wyoming Game and Fish, supra. The placement of objects on the surface of the easement, as proposed by [the appellant], is a substantial interference with [the appellee's] rights in the defined easement area.

18. [The appellant] is generally entitled to make use of the surface of the easement in ways which are consistent with [the appellee's] rights. For instance, [the appellant] can use any walkway constructed by [the appellee] on the surface of the easement for passage of its guests up and down the hill.

19. The easement, even though it contemplates the ultimate establishment of a 6 foot wide walkway, is not a floating easement. The easement location is established, its length and width are determined, and the location of the walkway within the easement is a matter of discretion for the [appellee] to determine. The failure of the [appellee] to define that walkway to the present time does not terminate or change its rights therein, nor is [the appellant] entitled to designate the location of the walkway on the easement surface.

20. [The appellant] is

...