Millard v. Talburt

• Docket Number: Docket No. 49773-2022
• Decision Date: 27 February 2024
• Citation: 544 P.3d 748
• Parties: Miles H. MILLARD and Leanne M. Millard, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Robert D. TALBURT and Debra A. Talburt, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Idaho Supreme Court

544 P.3d 748

Miles H. MILLARD and Leanne M. Millard, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Respondents,

v.Robert D. TALBURT and Debra A. Talburt, husband and wife, Defendants-Appellants.

Docket No. 49773-2022

Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, November 2023 Term.

Opinion Filed: February 27, 2024

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourth Judicial District of the State of Idaho, Boise County.Samuel A. Hoagland, District Judge.

The decision of the district court is affirmed.

Patridge Law, PLLC, Boise, for Appellants.William L. Partridge argued.

Johnson May Law, Boise, for Respondents.J. Justin May argued.

ZAHN, Justice.

This appeal arises from a property dispute between Robert and Debra Talburt and their neighbors, Miles and Leanne Millard.The Millards filed a lawsuit seeking to quiet title to a disputed tract of land, seeking declaratory judgments concerning a roadway easement and a well easement, and seeking breach of contract damages for maintenance of a shared well.After the Millards filed their lawsuit, the Talburts constructed a fence within the roadway easement, sent a letter to the Millards stating that they were relocating the roadway easement, and locked the pump house for the shared well.

After a two-day bench trial, the district court concluded that the Millards had abandoned their breach of contract claim and had failed to establish a right to the disputed property.The district court, however, ruled in favor of the Millards on the remaining claims.The district court also ordered the Talburts to remove the fence and found the Talburts’ attempt to relocate the roadway easement to be unlawful, invalid, and void.Later, the district court awarded the Millards a portion of their attorney fees and costs pursuant to Idaho Code section 12-121.

The Talburts timely appealed.For the reasons discussed below, we affirm.

I.FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Respondents Miles and Leanne Millard purchased 5.34 acres of real property in Boise County in 1994.The next year, the Millards had a well dug on the property.In May 1996, the Millards subdivided the property into two lots via a Segregation Plat, sold one of the resulting lots ("Lot 1") to the Legaults, and retained the second lot ("Lot 2").The Segregation Plat depicts two easements that burden Lot 1 and are the subject of this litigation: (1) a roadway easement described as "C/L 20’ Right-of-Way for Ingress and Egress" ("the Roadway Easement") and (2) a well easement described as "an easement in favor of Lot 2 for access and usage of existing well"("the Well Easement").

In 1990, the Millards and Legaults built a retaining wall between the two properties.Unbeknownst to either party, the actual property line was not where they built the retaining wall, but instead was slightly closer to the Millards’ house.Therefore, a small silver of the Legaults’ property was on the Millards’ side of the retaining wall.The par- ties refer to this sliver as the "Upper Wedge."Since 1996, the Millards have treated the Upper Wedge as a continuous part of their driveway and graveled the area and parked vehicles on the Upper Wedge.

In 2001, the Millards executed a "Shared Well Agreement" with the Legaults that equally apportioned costs and responsibilities associated with the shared well.The shared well includes a shared pump house and equipment, and well water is separately piped to both homes.

Following their execution of the Shared Well Agreement, the Legaults sold Lot 1.Lot 1 was later sold again in 2011, this time to Appellants Debra and Robert Talburt.Prior to the Talburts’ purchase, Lot 1 was surveyed and it was discovered that the Upper Wedge was not part of the Millards’ property but instead was part of Lot 1.The Millards and the Talburts’ predecessor-in-interest executed and recorded a "Lot Line Adjustment" that identified the Upper Wedge as part of Lot 1.The Millards signed the Lot Line Adjustment and certified that the property line adjustment depicted therein was acceptable.The Millards, however, continued to use the Upper Wedge as part of their driveway.

The Roadway Easement is a twenty-foot graveled roadway through Lot 1 that splits into two driveways; one goes to the Talburts’ home on Lot 1 and the other goes to the Millards’ home on Lot 2.Since 1996, the Millards have used the Roadway Easement to access the driveway to then home as well as an area of then property they call the "Lower Meadow."The "Lower Meadow" consists of the lower portion of the land purchased from the Legaults in 1998 and extends to the right side of Lot 2.Between 1996 and 2020, the Millards used a roadway that cuts through the Lower Meadow, which the parties call the "Access Road," to drive from the Roadway Easement to the Lower Meadow.The aerial photo below was admitted as an exhibit before the district court and has been modified by this Court to illustrate the different landmarks and easements at issue in this case.The photo is for illustrative purposes only and does not precisely reflect the exact location of the critical landmarks for the case.

544 P.3d 754.bmp

All seemed fine between the Millards and Talburts until 2017, when a series of disputes erupted between them.The Talburts claimed that the Millards trimmed elderberry bushes on the Talburts’ property without permission, cleaned up pine needles on the Roadway Easement when they preferred the "natural look" of the pine needles, took excessive trips to the well, added bleach in the well water, and failed to replace a broken fence at the end of the Roadway Easement.In response, the Talburts prevented the Millards’ guests from using the Roadway Easement to access the Millards’ house or the Lower Meadow, plowed snow in a way that blocked the Millards’ snowplow, and placed a small trailer on the Upper Wedge to prevent the Millards from using it.As a result of the disputes, the Millards commenced this lawsuit.

The Millards pleaded three claims against the Talburts: (1) a quiet title claim concerning the Upper Wedge based on a boundary by agreement, or in the alternative, claiming a prescriptive easement to use the Upper Wedge; (2) a declaratory judgment claim regarding the Millards’ rights to use and maintain the Roadway Easement and Well Easement and restricting the Talburts from building a fence in the Roadway Easement; and (3) a breach of contract claim for failure to pay expenses under the Shared Well Agreement.The Millards moved for summary judgment.The district court granted a partial summary judgment and concluded that the Segregation Plat created the Roadway Easement across the Talburts’ property for the benefit of the Millards.The district court denied summary judgment on all other issues after concluding that there were genuine issues of material fact that needed to be resolved at trial.

During the litigation, the Talburts put a lock on the shared pump house, and sent a letter through their attorney stating they were relocating the Roadway Easement pursuant to Idaho Code section 55-313.The Talburts then built a fence within the original boundaries of the Roadway Easement that blocked the Millards’ access to the Access Road and the Lower Meadow.The Talburts took these actions despite the fact that the Millards had a pending claim for declaratory judgment, which sought a declaration that the Talburts "may not build a fence or other obstruction along the boundary of the easement and the Millard property" and also sought a declaration concerning their right to access the pump house.Because the district court had not yet ruled on these claims when the Talburts built the fence and locked the pump house, the Millards devoted additional time and expense to arguing that these activities were unlawful.

On the eve of trial, the Talburts filed a motion for reconsideration arguing that the Roadway Easement and Well Easement were invalid because they failed to comply with Idaho Code section 55-601, which requires conveyances to include a grantee’s name and mailing address.The district court denied the motion, holding that subdividing a property via a Segregation Plat does not constitute a conveyance.

The district court then held a two-day bench trial, after which it made the following findings and conclusions:

(1) The boundary line between Lots 1 and 2 is as reflected in the 2011 Lot Line Adjustment and the Upper Wedge belongs to the Talburts.

(2) The plain language of the Segregation Plat gives the Millards the right to access, use, monitor, and maintain the shared well.The district court ordered the Talburts to cease any efforts to block access to, or lock, the shared well.

(3) Both the Millards and the Talburts have a right to access the well at any time to monitor, maintain, repair, or replace any aspect of the well.The Well Easement includes the right to access the pump house and the path to the well.Both the Millards and the Talburts have equal rights and responsibilities regarding the shared well, including an obligation to equally share the costs and responsibilities for maintaining the shared well.

(4) The Millards have a valid Roadway Easement, and they have the right to access their property from any point on the Roadway Easement.

(5) The Talburts do not have the unilateral right under Idaho Code section 55-313 to relocate the Roadway Easement to the injury of the Millards and such attempt was unlawful, invalid, and void.

(6) The fence built by the Talburts in the Roadway Easement is a spite fence that must be removed.

(7) The Millards have the duty to reasonably maintain the Roadway Easement.

(8) The Millards abandoned their breach of contract claim for well maintenance costs.

The Talburts moved to amend the district court’s order, arguing that the district court incorrectly imposed an additional burden on the servient estate by imposing shared costs and responsibilities for maintenance of the shared well.The district court denied the Talburts’ motion to amend, holding that the scope of the Well...