Johnson v. Highway 101 Invs., LLC

• Decision Date: 07 February 2014
• Docket Number: No. 39160.,39160.
• Citation: 156 Idaho 1,319 P.3d 485
• Parties: Kenton D. JOHNSON, a married man dealing with his sole and separate property; Nephi H. Allen, a married man dealing with his sole and separate property; and Rexburg Plumbing & Heating LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiffs–Counterdefendants–Appellants, v. HIGHWAY 101 INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant–Counterclaimant–Respondent.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

156 Idaho 1

319 P.3d 485

Kenton D. JOHNSON, a married man dealing with his sole and separate property; Nephi H. Allen, a married man dealing with his sole and separate property; and Rexburg Plumbing & Heating LLC, an Idaho limited liability company, Plaintiffs–Counterdefendants–Appellants,

v.HIGHWAY 101 INVESTMENTS, LLC, Defendant–Counterclaimant–Respondent.

No. 39160.

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2013 Term.

Feb. 7, 2014.

Rehearing Denied March 10, 2014.

Rigby, Andrus & Rigby, Chtd., Rexburg, for appellants. Hyrum D. Erickson argued.

Smith, Driscoll & Associates, PLLC, Idaho Falls, for respondent. Bryan D. Smith argued.

HORTON, Justice.

The dominant owners of an easement appeal from an adverse grant of summary judgment dismissing all of their claims, which were premised on the servient owner's construction of a permanent sign within the easement. The sign effectively reduced the width of the easement from twenty-five feet to nineteen feet at one point along its length. On appeal, the dominant owners argue that the district court erred in granting the servient owner's motion for summary judgment and contend that any reduction in the width of their easement is per se unlawful.

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Nephi Allen and Kenton Johnson are the managing members of Rexburg Plumbing and Heating, LLC (collectively "RP & H"). They operate RP & H from a building located on property that they own in Rexburg, Idaho. Idaho Highway 33 runs roughly north-south along the western boundary of the RP & H property. Directly to the north of the RP & H property is a street known as "American Street," which provides ingress and egress to and from Idaho Highway 33. RP & H has an express easement over American Street by virtue of a deed that conveys "a right-of-way to be used in common with others described as follows: [metes and bounds description]." Immediately to the east of the RP & H property lies property owned by Highway 101 Investments, LLC, a self-storage company. Highway 101 purchased this property on February 20, 2007. The property purchased by Highway 101 included a right-of-way easement identical to RP & H's easement.

In 2008, Highway 101 began to erect a sign on American Street within the easement boundaries shared by Highway 101 and RP & H. A hole was dug for the sign on August 6, 2008. Thereafter, the sign-post and two bollards were installed on August 19, 2008, and the sign was placed atop the sign-post on August 26, 2008. In July of 2009, after construction of the sign was complete, Highway 101 purchased the entire easement property in fee simple, making Highway 101 the owner of the servient estate.

The sign erected by Highway 101 is twenty feet wide, ten feet tall, and fourteen feet above the ground. It sits atop a sign-post that is sixteen inches in diameter; there is also a bollard on either side of the post measuring five inches in diameter. The sign is slightly less than six feet away from the northern boundary of the twenty-five-foot-wide easement, effectively reducing the easement width to slightly over nineteen feet at the point of the post and bollards. However, because RP & H's property runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the easement, the total distance between the sign and the RP & H building is between fifty and fifty-nine feet.

In February of 2010, RP & H filed its Complaint, which requested an injunction restraining Highway 101 from maintaining any obstruction above the surface of the roadway within the easement boundary. After discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court denied RP & H's motion and granted Highway 101's motion. The district court held that Idaho law gives servient estate owners the right to use their land, but forbids them from unreasonably burdening the privileges of dominant estate owners. In this case, the district court looked to the deed to define RP & H's "privilege" and determined the specific privilege was for ingress and egress only. Because testimony of RP & H's owners indicated that the sign did not prevent them, or their customers, from accessing the store from Highway 33, the district court concluded that Highway 101's placement of the sign did not unreasonably interfere with RP & H's use of American Street as a right-of-way. Accordingly, the court held that there was no genuine issue of material fact about whether the sign materially interfered with RP & H's use of the easement.¹ Final judgment was entered in favor of Highway 101, from which RP & H timely appealed.

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

In reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this Court employs the same standard as the district court. Cnty. of Boise v. Idaho Cntys. Risk Mgmt. Program, Underwriters, 151 Idaho 901, 904, 265 P.3d 514, 517 (2011). Summary judgment is proper when "the pleadings, depositions, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." I.R.C.P. 56(c). This Court freely reviews questions of law. Brannon v. City of Coeur d'Alene, 153 Idaho 843, 848, 292 P.3d 234, 239 (2012).

III. ANALYSIS

A. The erection of a permanent structure within an easement of definite location and dimensions is per se unreasonable.

"An easement is the right to use the land of another for a specific purpose that is not inconsistent with the general use of the property by the owner." Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence, 153 Idaho 411, 420, 283 P.3d 728, 737 (2012) (quoting Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474, 480, 129 P.3d 1223, 1229 (2006) ). "An easement owner is entitled to relief upon a showing that he is obstructed from exercising privileges granted by the easement." Conley v. Whittlesey, 133 Idaho 265, 272, 985 P.2d 1127, 1134 (1999) ; see also Bratton v. Scott, 150 Idaho 530, 536, 248 P.3d 1265, 1271 (2011).

The law is well settled with respect to the correlative rights of dominant and servient owners of easements. The owner of the servient estate is entitled to use the estate in any manner not inconsistent with, or which does not materially interfere with, the use of the easement by the owner of the dominant estate. In other words, the servient estate owner is entitled to make uses of the property that do not unreasonably interfere with the dominant estate owner's enjoyment of the easement.

Ruddy–Lamarca v. Dalton Gardens Irrigation Dist., 153 Idaho 754, 758, 291 P.3d 437, 441 (2012) (quoting Nampa & Meridian Irrigation Dist. v. Washington Fed. Sav., 135 Idaho 518, 522, 20 P.3d 702, 706 (2001) ).

A majority of our sister states recognize a caveat to the general rule of reasonableness: a permanent structure is per se unreasonable if it diminishes an easement with definite location and dimensions.² See Magna, Inc. v. Catranis, 512 So.2d 912, 913–14 (Ala.1987) ; Andersen v. Edwards, 625 P.2d 282, 286 (Alaska 1981) ; Squaw Peak Cmty. Covenant Church of Phoenix v. Anozira Dev., Inc., 149 Ariz. 409, 719 P.2d 295, 299 (App.1986) ; Sand Lake Shoppes Family Ltd. P'ship v. Sand Lake Courtyards, L.C., 816 So.2d 143, 146 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2002) (prohibiting erection of billboard in easement despite the fact that it did not prevent ingress and egress); Consol. Amusement Co. v. Waikiki Bus. Plaza, Inc., 6 Haw.App. 312, 719 P.2d 1119, 1123 (1986) ; McCauley v. Harris, 928 N.E.2d 309, 315 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) ; Aladdin Petroleum Corp. v. Gold Crown Props., Inc., 221 Kan. 579, 561 P.2d 818, 822, 825 (1977) ; Thiels v. Dennis, 29 So.3d 715, 718 (La.Ct.App.2010) ; Miller v. Kirkpatrick, 377 Md. 335, 833 A.2d 536, 547 (2003) ; Scoppa v. Myers, 341 Pa.Super. 61, 491 A.2d 148, 150 (1985) ; Xanadu Horizontal Prop. Regime v. Ocean Walk Horizontal Prop. Regime, 306 S.C. 170, 410 S.E.2d 580, 581–82 (App.1991) ; Piney Meeting House Invs., Inc. v. Hart, 284 Va. 187, 726 S.E.2d 319, 323 (2012) (noting that the majority rule did not apply where structures were entirely underground and therefore did not encroach on the easement); Jackson Hole Mountain Resort Corp. v. Alpenhof Lodge Assocs., 109 P.3d 555, 559–60 (Wyo.2005) (reasoning that a contrary rule would allow dominant estate owners to retake an easement in a piecemeal fashion); 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses § 86 ("A permanent physical obstruction placed in an express easement created by grant, in the absence of an agreement or surrounding circumstances to the contrary, interferes as a matter of law with the dominant tenement's right to the use of all of the express easement."); 28A C.J.S. Easements § 238 ("If by the terms of the grant or reservation the way must be of a certain width, no structures can be erected which encroach on the width stated, notwithstanding that the structures would not unreasonably interfere with the right of ingress and egress." (footnotes omitted)). Permanent structures that do not interfere with the right to use the entire dimension of the easement, such as an underground pipeline, may be lawfully located within the boundaries of the easement because they do not encroach on the dominate owner's easement rights.

We recognize that a minority of states adhere to a contrary reasonableness standard. See e.g. Skow v. Goforth, 618 N.W.2d 275, 278–81 (Iowa 2000) (refusing to enjoin construction of fence that would have intruded on a sixteen-and-a-half-foot-wide easement by as little as two inches; reasoning that balancing the needs of the dominant and servient estate owners will maximize aggregate utility); Musselshell Ranch Co. v. Seidel–Joukova, 362 Mont. 1, 261 P.3d 570, 577 (2011) (requiring removal of culvert installed in irrigation ditch, but stating that "[s]ome permanent encroachments may not justify a finding of unreasonable interference"); Mill Pond Condo. Ass'n v. Manalio, 910 A.2d 392, 395 (2006) (reciting the majority rule, but reaching the opposite conclusion where there was no evidence that sign interfered with use of the easement for ingress and egress); Gaw v....