Knight v. Madison, No. 21829.

• Court: Supreme Court of South Dakota
• Writing for the Court: GILBERTSON, Justice
• Citation: 634 N.W.2d 540,2001 SD 120
• Parties: John A. KNIGHT and Maria Carmen Knight, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. Stanley I. MADISON and Marilynn Madison, individually and in their capacities as co-trustees of the U/D/T dated May 3, 1991, Defendants and Appellees.
• Decision Date: 26 September 2001
• Docket Number: No. 21829.

634 N.W.2d 540
2001 SD 120

John A. KNIGHT and Maria Carmen Knight, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
Stanley I. MADISON and Marilynn Madison, individually and in their capacities as co-trustees of the U/D/T dated May 3, 1991, Defendants and Appellees

No. 21829.

Supreme Court of South Dakota.

Considered on Briefs August 28, 2001.

Decided September 26, 2001.

634 N.W.2d 541

James F. Margadant of Sieler & Margadant, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants

Ronald W. Banks of Banks, Johnson, Colbath & Kerr, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendants and appellees.

GILBERTSON, Justice

[¶ 1.] John and Maria Knight (Knight) own property served by an easement over and upon the property of Stanley and Marilynn Madison (Madison). Knight sought a judicial determination that he had an exclusive right to use the easement. The circuit court dismissed the claim. We affirm.

FACTS AND PROCEDURE

[¶ 2.] Knight built a home on realty designated by a plat as lot 14. The only access from lot 14 to a public road known as the South Canyon Road is by use of the.78 acre strip. This strip was referred to as a "road" and "lane" on the plats. The plats contain no language that indicates the "road" or "lane" was to be dedicated to the public use or that the public was granted some type of access to it. Knight built a driveway over the strip and has maintained the driveway at his own expense. Madison owns this private road along with other property adjoining it.¹ Although

634 N.W.2d 542

Madison has never interfered with, nor has he disputed, Knight's right to use the easement for access to lot 14, Knight brought this declaratory judgment action against Madison in 1997, seeking to establish the parties' rights in the .78 acre strip. Knight claimed his right to use the strip for ingress and egress, under an implied easement, was exclusive as to all parties other than Madison and his invitees. At one point, Knight attempted to enforce his claim of control by erecting a gate to keep out those he did not want to use the road. On motion for summary judgment, the circuit court dismissed Knight's claim, concluding that his right to use the .78 acre strip did "not include the right to limit, restrict, or define the rights of [Madison] or others to use the roadway for all reasonable purposes consonant with the limited grant implied by the recorded plats and grants." Knight appeals the dismissal of his claim

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶ 3.] The parties submitted this case to the circuit court on stipulated facts. Therefore, on review of a motion granting summary judgment, we need only determine whether the circuit court correctly applied the law. Westfield Ins. Co., Inc. v. Rowe, 2001 SD 87, ¶ 4, 631 N.W.2d 175, 176.

ANALYSIS AND DECISION

[¶ 4.] The parties agree that Knight has an implied easement over the.78 acre strip, arising from the plats filed by James. An easement is "an interest in the land in the possession of another which entitles the owner of such interest to a limited use or enjoyment of the land in which the interest exists." Gilbert v. KTI, Inc., 765 S.W.2d 289, 293 (Mo.App.1988) (citations omitted).

[¶ 5.] The first question is whether the easement is public or private. An easement may be dedicated to public use if the owner clearly acts to dedicate the easement and the public entity accepts the dedication. Tinaglia v. Ittzes, 257 N.W.2d 724, 728-29 (S.D.1977) (citations omitted). Neither Madison nor any previous owner has expressly or impliedly dedicated the easement to public use. Beyond that, no public entity accepted the easement. Therefore, the easement remains private.

[¶ 6.] The second question is whether...