Jenkins v. Miller
| Decision Date | 14 April 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. S-07-0216.,S-07-0216. |
| Citation | 2008 WY 45,180 P.3d 925 |
| Parties | John G. JENKINS and Carol Voigt Jenkins and Johnson County Ranch Improvement # 1, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellants (Defendants), v. Gerry MILLER and Marie L. Miller, Trustees of the Gerry and Marie Miller Living Trust, dated September 27, 2004, and Miller Sand Creek Ranch, LLC, a Wyoming limited liability company, Appellees (Plaintiffs). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellants: Kim D. Cannon and J. Mark Stewart of Davis & Cannon, Sheridan, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Cannon.
Representing Appellees: Dennis M. Kirven and Benjamin S. Kirven of Kirven and Kirven, P.C., Buffalo, Wyoming. Argument by Dennis M. Kirven.
Before VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, BURKE, JJ, and DONNELL, KAUTZ, D.JJ.
[¶ 1] Appellants, John G. Jenkins and Carol Voigt Jenkins ("Jenkins"), challenge the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Appellees, Gerry and Marie Miller ("Millers"), and sua sponte dismissal of Jenkins' counterclaim with respect to a private road easement. Millers had requested declaratory relief regarding an Easement Deed unilaterally recorded by Jenkins, the terms of which Millers disputed. Jenkins counterclaimed for a declaration that the same Easement Deed was valid and, further, that the parties were bound by an historical oral agreement for easement. The district court granted judgment in favor of Millers, concluding that Millers never accepted the Easement Deed and that there was no legally enforceable access to Millers' lands. The court further dismissed Jenkins' counterclaim on the grounds that Jenkins were precluded from seeking such declaratory relief, as the decision to pursue an easement rested only with Millers, as potential grantees/dominant estate owners. We reverse.
[¶ 2] Jenkins present the following issues for review:
1. What are the limits on the court's discretion to dismiss a claim for declaratory judgment without reaching the merits?
2. Does the license or easement holder have the exclusive right to pursue declaratory relief or pursue a statutory remedy?
3. Does Walton v. Dana, 609 P.2d 461 (Wyo.1980), bar the Appellants' mandatory counterclaim for declaratory relief?
4. Does the mere existence of a statutory procedure to condemn a private right-of-way under Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-9-101 through 24-9-104 (LexisNexis 2007) bar the owner of the servient estate from bringing a declaratory action?
5. Do material issues of fact preclude summary judgment as to whether the Appellees have an easement, irrevocable license, or a revocable license?
6. Are there factual issues as to whether the Appellees accepted the benefits of the agreement and subsequently the recorded Easement Deed?
[¶ 3] Millers present similar issues for review:
1. Did the district court abuse its discretion in dismissing Appellants' Counterclaim for declaratory judgment?
2. Did the district court properly apply the holding in Walton v. Dana in dismissing Appellants' Counterclaim for declaratory judgment?
3. Does Appellees' Non-Acceptance of the Easement Deed and Corrective Easement Deed support the district court's grant of Appellees' Motion for Summary Judgment?
4. Does the district court's dismissal of Appellants' Counterclaim constitute harmless error?
5. Does the foundational principle of equity preclude Appellants from advocating for an irrevocable license?
[¶ 4] Jenkins own certain lands located in Johnson County, Wyoming. Millers own adjacent lands and, historically, have accessed their property through Jenkins' property. This access occurred over various routes until the early 1980s, when Betty Jenkins, Jenkins' predecessor in interest, orally granted Millers a "permanent easement" in exchange for Millers relocating their route and constructing, at Millers' expense, a gravel lane along the west boundary of Jenkins' property. The parties agree that Millers and Betty Jenkins reached an agreement as to a permanent access easement though they dispute certain specific terms. Since that date, Millers have used this road ("the gravel road") to access their property.
[¶ 5] In 2004, Jenkins began considering a plan to subdivide their property for residential development. Jenkins invited Millers to be included in the development project; Millers declined. In any event, this project brought the issue of Millers' access to the forefront. On September 24, 2004, Jenkins unilaterally filed with the County Clerk of Johnson County, Wyoming, an Easement Deed reflecting a grant of easement to Millers. Jenkins contend that the purpose of the Easement Deed was "to confirm the historical permission which had been granted by the Jenkinses [sic] to the Millers." The Easement Deed described the location of the current gravel road and attached to Millers' land. However, the Easement Deed also limited the use of the road to ingress and egress for Millers' domicile and for agricultural purposes only; prohibited access to any dwellings on Millers' land other than Millers' single residence; and imposed obligations to repair and maintain the proposed easement. Finally, the Easement Deed restricted the width of the road to eighteen (18) feet.
[¶ 6] Millers, unhappy with these restrictions, which they claim were never agreed upon, notified Jenkins of their objection, first, by letter sent February 7, 2005, and, second, by filing a Notice of Non-Acceptance of Easement with the County Clerk of Johnson County, Wyoming, on April 21, 2005.1
[¶ 7] On March 27, 2007, Millers filed their Complaint for Declaratory Judgment. They sought a determination from the district court that they had not accepted the Easement Deed granted by Jenkins and that the Miller property was without legally enforceable access to a public road as contemplated by Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 24-9-101 through 24-9-104. Jenkins answered and filed a counterclaim for declaratory judgment, seeking the inverse, namely that the court
declare the validity of the Easement Deed according to the terms of that deed as it was executed and recorded on September 24, 2004. The Counterclaimants ask the Court to declare that it is an appurtenant easement in full force and effect providing access to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the terms of the document.
[¶ 8] On October 27, 2006, Millers moved for summary judgment; Jenkins objected. On May 21, 2007, the district court heard the matter and ruled from the bench. That ruling was memorialized in an Order dated July 9, 2007, which states, in part:
Plaintiffs are not required to come before this Court prior to petitioning the Board of County Commissioners for Johnson County for a private right of way pursuant to Wyoming Statute § 24-9-101 et seq.
There are no genuine issues of material fact concerning Plaintiffs' Non-Acceptance on the Easement Deed, filed September 24, 2004.
There are no genuine issues of material fact concerning Plaintiffs' Non-Acceptance of the Corrective Easement Deed, filed May 16[sic], 2007.
The unilateral Easement Deed, filed September 24, 2004, and the Corrective Easement Deed, filed May 16[sic], 2007, are null and void for lack of acceptance by Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on non-acceptance of the unilateral Easement Deed, filed September 24, 2004, and unilateral Corrective Easement Deed, filed May 16[sic], 2007, should be granted, as Defendants have not demonstrated any genuine issues of material fact concerning non-acceptance of the purported easement, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on absence of legally enforceable access to Plaintiffs' lands should be granted, as Defendants have not demonstrated a genuine issue of material fact concerning the lack of legally enforceable access, and Plaintiffs are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
Defendants' Counterclaim for a declaratory judgment should be dismissed because the right to pursue an easement rests exclusively with the petitioners, and Defendants are precluded from bringing a declaratory judgment action.
Thus, the district court voided the Easement Deed and Corrective Easement Deed; declared Millers without legally enforceable access to their lands; and dismissed Jenkins' counterclaim. This timely appeal followed.
[¶ 9] While the parties present several issues for review, this Court need consider only two: first, whether the district court erred in granting Millers' motion for summary judgment to declare the Easement Deed null and void and to declare Millers without legally enforceable access to their lands; and, second, whether the district court erred in dismissing, sua sponte, Jenkins' counterclaim for declaratory judgment on the grounds that Jenkins were precluded from bringing an action to enforce an easement or to determine the validity of an alleged easement.
[¶ 10] The Court first considers the district court's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of Millers. The district court's decision was two-fold: first, that there were no genuine issues of material fact with respect to Millers' "nonacceptance" or rejection of the Easement Deed such that the Easement Deed was null and void and, second that Millers were without legally enforceable access to their lands.
[¶ 11] "When reviewing an order granting a summary judgment motion, we consider the record de novo." Hincks v. Walton Ranch Co., 2007 WY 12, ¶ 7, 150 P.3d 669, 670 (Wyo.2007) (citing Knapp v. Landex Corp., 2006 WY 36, ¶ 7, 130 P.3d 924, 926 (Wyo.2006)).
[¶ 12] In specifically addressing the Easement Deed and the "unilateral easement" recorded by Jenkins, the district court stated:
[The] Court does not believe there is a material question of fact as to the acceptance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Basic Energy Servs., L.P. v. Petroleum Res. Mgmt., Corp.
......Id. at ¶ 33, 246 P.3d at 875–76. See also, Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, ¶ 21, 180 P.3d 925, 932 (Wyo.2008) (discussing procedure for sua sponte dismissals to avoid prejudice to plaintiff). The ......
-
Big–D Signature Corp. v. Sterrett Props., LLC
...CBL & Associates, 741 P.2d 1090, 1092 (Wyo.1987) (citations omitted)). Jackson v. Jackson, 961 P.2d 393, 395 (Wyo.1998).Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, ¶ 20, 180 P.3d 925, 932 (Wyo.2008).DISCUSSION1. Jurisdiction over the partial summary judgment order [¶ 12] Big–D spent much of its time, bo......
-
Cornella v. City of Lander
...... of a previously unaddressed issue before a court makes a. determination and/or enters a dismissal. Jenkins v. Miller, 2008 WY 45, ¶¶ 20-21, 180 P.3d 925,. 932-33 (Wyo. 2008); Union Pacific R. Co. v. Caballo Coal. Co., 2011 WY 24, ¶ 31, 246 P.3d 867, ......
-
Cornella v. City of Lander
...upon the discovery of a previously unaddressed issue before a court makes a determination and/or enters a dismissal. Jenkins v. Miller , 2008 WY 45, ¶¶ 20–21, 180 P.3d 925, 932–33 (Wyo. 2008) ; Union Pacific R. Co. v. Caballo Coal Co ., 2011 WY 24, ¶ 31, 246 P.3d 867, 875 (Wyo. 2011) ; [502......