Machado v. Quarter of the Se. Quarter of the Se. Quarter of Section 19, Twp. 45 N.
| Decision Date | 29 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 37888.,37888. |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Jerry MACHADO and Terry Machado, husband and wife, Plaintiffs/Counterdefendants/Appellants/Cross–Respondents, v. Charles L. RYAN and Carol Ryan, husband and wife, Trustees of the Charles and Carol Ryan Trust, Jane Doe Ryan, John Doe Ryan, John Does I–III, Jane Does I–III, and any other person or entity claiming an interest in the following parcel of real property located in the County of Benewah, State of Idaho, to Wit: a tract of land situated in the Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 19, Township 45 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, County of Benewah, State of Idaho, Defendants/Counterclaimants/Respondents/Cross–Appellants. Charles L. Ryan and Carol Ryan, husband and wife, Third–Party Plaintiffs/Respondents/Cross–Appellants, v. Richard F. Clinton and John Does I–III, Jane Does I–III, and any other person or entity claiming an interest in the following parcel of real property located in the County of Benewah, State of Idaho, to Wit: a tract of land situated in the NW 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 45 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, County of Benewah, State of Idaho, Third–Party Defendants/Appellants/Cross–Respondents. Kristopher Jones, Intervenor/Respondent/Cross–Appellant, v. Richard Clifton, Jerry Machado and Terry Machado, husband and wife, and John Does I–III, Jane Does I–III, and any other person or entity claiming an interest in the following parcel of real property located in the County of Benewah, State of Idaho, to Wit: a tract of land situated in the NW 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 45 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, County of Benewah, State of Idaho, and a tract of land situated in the NW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 19, Township 45 North, Range 1 West of the Boise Meridian, County of Benewah, State of Idaho, Defendants/Appellants/Cross–Respondents. |
Linscott Law Firm, PLLC, Coeur d'Alene, for appellants. April Linscott argued.
Ian D. Smith, Coeur d'Alene, for respondents.
Jerry and Terry Machado (the Machados) and Richard Clifton appeal from the district court's decision finding that their properties are burdened by an express easement and an implied easement by necessity in favor of Charles and Carol Ryan (the Ryans) and Kristopher Jones.1 Ryan and Jones cross-appeal the district court's failure to rule on their claims of implied easement by prior use and easement by prescription. We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings.
On November 6, 1970, Promised Land & Cattle Co. (PL & C) conveyed the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19, Township 45 North, Range 1 West, Boise Meridian (Section 19) to Timberland Resources, Inc. (Timberland). On the same day, before Timberland's deed was recorded, PL & C and other adjacent landowners recorded an instrument that created an easement across portions of Sections 20, 29, 30, and 31 (the Road Easement), but did not contain any reference to Section 19. The easement was "for a roadway for ingress and egress," to be "located upon and along the existing logging road" that was shown on the map attached to and incorporated into the easement. The map showed a road that did not cross Section 19. The easement expressly provided that "[n]one of the parties shall have the right to use any roads across any lands of the other parties except as to said logging road." From 1970 to 1971, the road that was shown in the Road Easement was relocated at Timberland's direction onto Section 19 to form the present public road called Flat Creek Road. On December 22, 1970, Timberland sold Clifton the E ½ of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19. Clifton's deed contained the following provision:
SUBJECT TO: Easement of record, which allows joint useage [sic] of a road over and across the described property and adjacent property which runs with the land, for ingress and egress from the described property as recorded on November 6, 1970 in Book 154 of Miscellaneous Records, page 394, records of Benewah County, Idaho, being Document No. 119025.
The document identified in this deed is the Road Easement. Timberland then conveyed to Monty Dickinson the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19. The deed also provided that the conveyance was "[s]ubject to" the Road Easement.
The Ryans purchased the SW ¼ of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19 in 1989 and the property was conveyed to them "with all tenements, easements, hereditaments and appurtenances thereunto belonging." The Ryans built a home on the property, accessing their parcel by means of the private road at issue, known as Shamrock Lane. From 1993 until this controversy developed, the Ryans made improvements to, and maintained, Shamrock Lane.
Timberland conveyed the NW ¼ of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19 to Kristopher Jones via a deed that stated: Clifton later conveyed the NE ¼ of the SE ¼ of the SE ¼ of Section 19 to Machado via a deed that provides that the property is subject to all easements of record. Before purchasing their properties, both Clifton and Jones received and reviewed Timberland's promotional materials, which described the lots and stated that access to the property was by "private road."
When Clifton purchased his lot from Timberland, there was no public road providing access to what later became the Jones property, and the only present access to the Jones property is Shamrock Lane. Flat Creek Road now crosses the southeast corner of the Ryan property. According to Machado's expert, Jeffrey Pugh, a significant amount of work would be necessary to construct usable access to the home located on the Ryan property from Flat Creek Road. Pugh estimated that the cost of constructing this access would exceed $22,000, not including the additional costs of relocating a power pole and installing a culvert.
Machado filed a complaint to quiet title and for declaratory relief on September 27, 2007. Ryan timely answered and counter-claimed, asking the district court to find an easement over the Machado property under theories of express easement, implied easement by necessity, implied easement by prior use, and prescription. Ryan also filed a third party complaint against Clifton, requesting easements across his property. The third party complaint was later amended to reflect that legal title to the Ryan property is held by the Charles and Carol Ryan Trust. By stipulation of the parties, Jones was permitted to intervene, and he filed a complaint asking for an easement across the Machado and Clifton properties.
The district court denied the Ryans' summary judgment motion and set a trial date. A six-day court trial was held on June 16–18, 2009, and September 28–30, 2009. The district court found in favor of Ryan and Jones, concluding that both an express easement and an easement implied by necessity exist across the Machado and Clifton properties on Shamrock Lane. The district court found that the easement is fourteen feet wide and that there is a secondary easement of fifteen feet on each side of Shamrock Lane for snow removal. Machado appeals the district court's findings. The Ryans cross-appeal the district court's failure to decide their claims of easement implied by prior use and easement by prescription.2
"This Court reviews factual findings made after a trial without a jury for clear error." Coward v. Hadley, 150 Idaho 282, 286, 246 P.3d 391, 395 (2010) (citing I.R.C.P. 52(a) ). "We will not disturb findings of fact that are supported by substantial and competent evidence, even if there is conflicting evidence." Backman v. Lawrence, 147 Idaho 390, 394, 210 P.3d 75, 79 (2009) (quoting Akers v. D.L. White Constr., Inc., 142 Idaho 293, 298, 127 P.3d 196, 201 (2005) (Akers I ) ). Substantial evidence is that which a reasonable trier of fact would accept and rely upon it in determining findings of fact. Id. We freely review the district court's conclusions of law. Coward, 150 Idaho at 286, 246 P.3d at 395 (citing Carney v. Heinson, 133 Idaho 275, 278, 985 P.2d 1137, 1140 (1999) ).
"The existence of ambiguity determines the standard of review of a lower court's interpretation of a contract or instrument." Mountainview Landowners Coop. Ass'n, Inc. v. Cool, 139 Idaho 770, 772, 86 P.3d 484, 486 (2004) (citing Union Pac. R.R. Co. v. Ethington Fam. Trust, 137 Idaho 435, 437–38, 50 P.3d 450, 452–53 (2002) ). "The legal effect of an unambiguous written document must be decided by the trial court as a question of law." Mountainview Landowners, 139 Idaho at 772, 86 P.3d at 486 (quoting Latham v. Garner, 105 Idaho 854, 857, 673 P.2d 1048, 1051 (1983) ). "If, however, the instrument of conveyance is ambiguous, interpretation of the instrument is a matter of fact for the trier of fact." Id. Whether a document is ambiguous is a question of law. McKay v. Boise Project Bd. of Control, 141 Idaho 463, 469, 111 P.3d 148, 154 (2005) (citing City of Chubbuck v. City of Pocatello, 127 Idaho 198, 899 P.2d 411 (1995) ).
Machado argues that the district court erred in finding an express easement because the deed does not reserve an easement and no other writing creates an easement. The Ryans respond that the district court correctly concluded that the language in the deeds conveying the subject properties, along with the written materials used to market the property, created an express easement. We disagree and reverse the district court's judgment finding an express easement.
Express easements may be created by either reservation or...
To continue reading
Request your trial