Labrenz v. Burnett
| Decision Date | 16 October 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. S-12770.,S-12770. |
| Citation | 218 P.3d 993 |
| Parties | Jeffrey LABRENZ, Appellant, v. Shane BURNETT and Jill Burnett, Appellees. |
| Court | Alaska Supreme Court |
Robert A. Sparks, Law Office of Robert A. Sparks, Fairbanks, for Appellant.
William R. Satterberg, Jr., Law Offices of William R. Satterberg, Jr., Fairbanks, for Appellees.
Before: FABE, Chief Justice, EASTAUGH, CARPENETI, WINFREE, and CHRISTEN, Justices.
This appeal addresses a dispute between Jeffrey Labrenz and Shane and Jill Burnett over the use of land described in an easement. Labrenz has a driveway easement over the Burnetts' land, and in building his driveway, Labrenz installed decorative rocks, shrubs, trees, a fence, and a gate on the Burnetts' property. The superior court agreed with Labrenz that the slope of the Burnetts' land necessitated certain efforts to control erosion, but it found that many of Labrenz's improvements to the driveway easement were cosmetic in nature and ordered that they be removed. In addition, the superior court ordered Labrenz to move the fence and gate onto his own property. The superior court also permitted the Burnetts to use the easement to build a driveway to access the lower portion of their lot.
On appeal, Labrenz challenges the superior court's findings of fact as clearly erroneous and argues that his easement improvements were allowed under theories of contract and estoppel. He also contends that all of his improvements were reasonably necessary to protect his driveway from erosion and vandals. Because the evidence at trial supported the superior court's findings and the superior court's legal conclusions were not erroneous, we affirm the superior court's decision in all respects.
Jeffrey Labrenz and Shane and Jill Burnett own adjacent lots in the Sherwood Forrest Subdivision on Chena Ridge in Fairbanks. Lot 13A is owned by Labrenz, who also has an access easement over the lower portion of Lot 14A, owned by the Burnetts. Before the Burnetts owned Lot 14A, it was owned by Jeremy Riddle. The initial easement over Lot 14A was a thirty-foot-wide strip that was positioned during development of the subdivision by driving a bulldozer "along a path that was estimated, by eye, to be adequate for automobiles" to access Labrenz's property, Lot 13A.
Labrenz installed a driveway across Lot 14A to his property, and in the process, excavated outside of the driveway easement boundaries on Lot 14A. After it became apparent that Labrenz had over-excavated his easement, he and Riddle agreed on a replat of their adjoining lots, which was completed on May 4, 2004. Labrenz gave up a small portion of his lot in order to enlarge the easement area. In May 2004 Riddle sold Lot 14A to the Burnetts.
In addition to excavating his driveway easement in a manner that provided erosion controls, Labrenz landscaped it with light-colored rocks, shrubs, and spruce trees. Labrenz also placed a wire fence and gate on the easement, with a portion of the fence extending outside the easement on the Burnetts' property. The Burnetts objected to Labrenz's landscaping choices and the placement of the fence and gate on their property and requested that they be removed. Labrenz refused and replaced the wire fence with a white vinyl fence after he was sued by the Burnetts.
In June 2005 Shane Burnett filed suit against Labrenz, claiming that Labrenz had made use of the Burnetts' land in excess of Labrenz's rights under the easement. Specifically, Burnett alleged that Labrenz had trespassed on the Burnetts' property by making use of a wider strip of land than the easement allowed and "wasting the property." In August 2005 Burnett requested that the superior court issue an order requiring the removal of the improvements that Labrenz had made to the easement and enjoining Labrenz from making any further improvements. In late October 2005, the superior court denied Burnett's motion for a preliminary injunction requiring removal of the improvements. Jill Burnett was added as a plaintiff in December of that year. In March 2006 the superior court ruled that the Burnetts could only assert claims that had been available to Riddle, the former owner who originally granted the easement to Labrenz.
The case went to trial on October 26, 2006. Labrenz argued that all of the landscaping was necessary to protect his driveway from erosion. He also claimed that the fence and gate were necessary to protect his driveway from vandalism by snow-machiners and four-wheelers who might come on the property and destroy the driveway. The Burnetts argued that Labrenz had landscaped the easement area of Lot 14A to match Labrenz's own landscaping so that it would look like Labrenz's property and contended that the light-colored rocks and shrubs were decorative in nature. The Burnetts further maintained that to the extent the rocks and plants protected against erosion, other less obtrusive options such as "hardy grass" were available. Riddle testified that he had never approved Labrenz's rocks and shrubs and that he believed Labrenz's gate and fence were temporary. The surveyor of the replat testified that the purpose of the replat was to accommodate the improvements Labrenz had installed on the easement.
At the conclusion of the trial, the superior court made oral findings, determining that while "there has got to be some erosion control" to prevent against runoff, the light-colored rocks bordering the driveway were "more for the decorative beauty of the landscaping." Though the superior court acknowledged that the threat of erosion presented a "serious issue," it found that the threat of vandalism was not "a realistic problem" and ordered the fence and gate to be moved onto Labrenz's property. It took under advisement the question whether the rocks and shrubs would have to be removed and replaced with other plantings to control erosion.
The superior court issued supplemental written findings and concluded that the rocks, shrubs, and trees were primarily decorative in nature and that the nature of the landscaping was not reasonable or necessary under the circumstances. The superior court ordered Labrenz to remove the shrubs, after which the Burnetts could landscape the easement "as they see fit." The superior court confirmed its earlier ruling that the fence and gate were to be moved onto Labrenz's property. Finally, the superior court ruled that the Burnetts would be permitted to use Labrenz's easement to access their own property, though the superior court warned that should the Burnetts damage Labrenz's driveway in developing their own access, they would be fully responsible for the damage.
Labrenz requested a new trial and clarification of the superior court's decision, as well as a stay of its order. The superior court denied both Labrenz's motion for a stay of judgment and his request for a new trial, but it issued a supplemental order addressing his request for clarification. It explained that improvements within the easement area must be reasonably related to the easement's purpose — that of a driveway. The superior court found that the decorative rocks, decorative shrubs, gate, and fencing placed on the easement were not reasonably related to the essential functions of the driveway and thus should be removed. Labrenz appeals.
We review the superior court's factual findings under the clearly erroneous standard and will disturb those findings only "when we are left with a definite and firm conviction on the entire record that a mistake has been made."1 We review the superior court's legal conclusions de novo.2
Labrenz first argues that the superior court's findings are clearly erroneous "because the Burnetts are bound by the agreement reached between Labrenz and [Riddle] ... to expand the driveway easement to protect [Labrenz's] improvements." The parties stipulated to the admission of a written statement from the surveyor who conducted the replat of Lots 13A and 14A, rather than calling him as a witness. Labrenz relies on the surveyor's proffered testimony that
Mr. Riddle knew of Mr. Labrenz's gate/ fence, plantings, rock and improvements in the ... easement area and the purpose of the agreement for the replat was to accommodate the improvements that [Labrenz] had installed in the access easement area; and that [Labrenz] paid for part of the replat costs.
Labrenz argues that this testimony conclusively "establishes that Riddle knew of [Labrenz's] improvements in the easement" and "that a purpose of the agreement between Riddle and [Labrenz] for the replat was to accommodate or protect the improvements that [Labrenz] had installed in the access easement area." Yet as the Burnetts persuasively argue, the "intent of the parties regarding the extent of protection granted by the replat can best be determined by the testimony" of Riddle and Labrenz. The Burnetts concede that at the time of the replat, Riddle knew of Labrenz's improvements in the easement, but they highlight Riddle's testimony that he believed that Labrenz's gate and fence were temporary and that he never gave Labrenz approval for the rocks and shrubs.
Labrenz maintains that by entering into a stipulation that the superior court could consider the surveyor's written statement, the Burnetts "removed the trial court's ability to assess demeanor and determine credibility and they should be bound by their stipulation." But an exchange at trial reveals that the stipulation reflected only an agreement as to what the surveyor would say if called to the stand. When questioned by the superior court about admitting the surveyor's written statement by stipulation, the Burnetts' attorney...
To continue reading
Request your trial