Rubin v. Hughes
| Decision Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | DA 21-0272 |
| Citation | 408 Mont. 219,507 P.3d 1169 |
| Parties | Corey Alan RUBIN and Don Hauth, Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. Brent E. HUGHES and Grace Hughes, husband and wife, Defendants and Appellants. |
| Court | Montana Supreme Court |
For Appellants: Paul A. Sandry, Johnson, Berg, & Saxby, PLLP, Kalispell, Montana
For Appellees: Sean S. Frampton, Frampton Purdy Law Firm, Whitefish, Montana
¶1 Brent and Grace Hughes (individually "Brent" and "Grace", collectively "the Hugheses") appeal the May 6, 2021, Judgment of the Eleventh Judicial District Court, Flathead County, awarding a total of $360,000 to Corey Rubin ("Rubin") and Don Hauth ("Hauth"). We affirm.
¶2 We restate the following issues on appeal:
¶3 Rubin, Hauth, and the Hugheses own adjacent properties in Flathead County. The Hugheses’ property lies between Rubin's property to the north and Hauth's property to the south. Hauth purchased his land in 1980. The Hugheses and Rubin purchased their property in 2016 and 2018, respectively, from Jackson Moses ("Moses"). The Hugheses’ land runs across Kauffman Lane and contains a gate across the road, installed by Moses. Rubin and Hauth each enjoy an easement allowing them use of Kauffman Lane for purposes of accessing their properties. At some point, the neighbors’ relationship turned contentious. For clarity, and due to the differing nature of the disagreements, we address the Hugheses’ relationships with Rubin and Hauth in turn.
¶4 Rubin accesses his property via Kauffman Lane, across the northern portion of the Hugheses’ property. Rubin's access road turns east before he reaches the Hugheses’ residence. As the road turns east, a switchback in the road, adjacent to the Hugheses’ property, turns north again. As the road continues to Rubin's cabin, it crosses a corner of the Hugheses’ property.1
¶5 Around the time Rubin purchased his property from Moses, the Hugheses and Moses had discussed an easement across Moses's property benefiting the Hugheses. Moses sought to honor this arrangement during Rubin's closing process. The first mention of the easement occurred in the September 13, 2018, Inspection Notice completed by Rubin:
Seller is however responsible for total expense of new property survey plat to show the correct legal description and acreage of 29.6. In addition, the expense of surveyor and attorney fees to add easement that was agreed between seller and neighboring property owner located at 244/254 Kauffman Lane. New buyer to review for final approval before recording.
Ultimately, Rubin and Moses executed an Addendum to their Buy/Sell Agreement ("Addendum") providing the following:
Buyer acknowledges and agrees to grant an easement to Brent Hughes, owner of property known [as] 252/244 Kauffman Lane. Said easement to be granted immediately after closing of the property sale of this Buy/Sell. Easement will be the location as defined and surveyed by Eby Associates and described in written easement document previously accepted by all related parties.
Moses additionally agreed to pay "all costs related to surveying and filing this easement" and to allow Rubin "final approval before recording." At the date of Rubin's closing, neither a written easement agreement nor a survey defining the easement existed and Rubin granted no easement.
¶6 Rubin testified that his relationship with the Hugheses started out amicably. Once Rubin closed and took possession of the property without granting the Hugheses an easement, he testified to more frequent disagreements between them. Brent became increasingly angry each time the gate on Kauffman Lane was left open by Rubin or a guest. On at least two occasions, Brent cut down trees located on Rubin's property. At the switchback, Brent and his son ran string and spray painted the area, narrowing the road eight to ten feet and making it difficult for Rubin to navigate. The Hugheses additionally began flagging their property line at the trapezoid area. Rubin believed that his initiation of legal proceedings caused Brent to increase the flagging and to stake the Hugheses’ property along the entirety of Rubin's easement to irritate Rubin.
¶7 The Hugheses’ use of a road running across Rubin's property became contested, prompting Rubin to send a text to Grace asking the Hugheses not to trespass on his land. The Hugheses’ continued trespassing on the road led Rubin to contact the Flathead County Sheriff's Office. Despite law enforcement's involvement, the Hugheses continued trespassing, leading Rubin to construct a rock barrier on the road. Brent removed the barrier. The Hugheses’ use of the road only ceased when Rubin's counsel sent a cease and desist letter to the Hugheses.
¶8 Rubin later testified to multiple instances of perceived spying by Brent, including one instance where Rubin visited Hauth. As Rubin and Hauth spoke, Brent parked nearby and stood outside his truck for the duration of the conversation. When Rubin left, Brent cut him off on the road and slowed down to "two miles an hour" in front of Rubin. Rubin additionally testified that Brent used binoculars to watch Rubin while he worked on his property.
¶9 Rubin testified to the "intimidat[ing] and annoy[ing]" effects of the flagging and the Hugheses’ behavior. He described the property as a "dream" and testified that the Hugheses’ behavior ruined that dream and caused unrelenting anxiety. Rubin testified that the Hugheses’ behavior instilled a sense of fear in him and caused him to change his route to avoid passing the Hugheses’ residence on his visits to Hauth. Rubin testified to incurring therapy expenses associated with the Hugheses’ behavior.
¶10 Brent did not dispute receiving notice from Rubin regarding his use of the road or removing the rock barrier Rubin placed. He contended that Rubin had previously given him permission to use the road and testified to his continued use of the road even after Rubin texted Grace not to trespass. Brent conceded that a text saying "don't trespass" would be a revocation of permission. However, Brent testified that he did not believe Rubin expressly revoked permission but, rather, was just complaining about his use of the road. Brent offered that he had attempted to contact Rubin for several months while Rubin was out of state, but never heard from him.
¶11 Brent testified that he traditionally drives slowly on gravel roads and denied cutting Rubin off after a visit with Hauth. He explained he used binoculars to identify trees to cut down, and that the flags helped him identify his property line for construction purposes. He further testified that he would have removed the flags had he known the effect on Rubin. Brent did not dispute that he continued flagging after Rubin and Hauth filed suit which alleged Brent's flagging was done out of spite.
¶12 Hauth's relationship with the Hugheses also began amicably. Hauth testified that the relationship began to sour after Brent told him "Well, you've been here 40 years, now it's my turn," and asked to buy Hauth's land. Hauth rejected the offer, and thereafter Brent began flagging his property line. Hauth testified that he found the flagging offensive because the placement of flags interfered with memories of his father. Hauth additionally noted concerns that the flags would interfere with the area's riparian nature. The Hugheses posted "No Trespassing" signs and painted a line across Hauth's driveway demarking the property line, despite Hauth's easement. Hauth estimated Brent repainted the line approximately three times.
¶13 On several occasions, the Hugheses photographed or filmed Hauth as he drove down his easement, which passed in front of the Hugheses’ residence. Hauth said this made him uncomfortable. Hauth further testified regarding an altercation with Brent wherein Brent angrily approached Hauth's vehicle as he drove on the easement, shouting "he was gonna get [Hauth]" and "spraying sputum" in Hauth's face. Hauth perceived this as a threat and testified that the incident caused him to feel intimidated by Brent. Hauth unsuccessfully applied for an order of protection following this incident, citing fears of being verbally and physically assaulted by Brent as he accessed his property.
¶14 Hauth testified to observing Brent approach Hauth's visitors on the road and, following brief encounters with Brent, witnessing the visitors turn around and leave without reaching Hauth's residence. One of Hauth's neighbors testified that he no longer visits Hauth due to Brent's behaviors. Hauth experienced difficulties receiving deliveries. Donald Guerrero, a delivery driver for UPS, testified that Brent informed him he could no longer use the Hugheses’ driveway, which prevented the driver from delivering to Hauth. Instead, Hauth would receive a phone call from the driver and walk to pick up his package at Kauffman Lane.
¶15 Hauth attempted to continue with normal activities. He testified to one occasion where he walked to check his mail, which required walking past the Hugheses’ residence. Hauth testified that Brent got in his truck and followed Hauth, "traveling at the same speed [Hauth] was walking." Brent parked his truck and observed Hauth in his rearview mirror as he retrieved his mail, and again followed Hauth as he returned home. Hauth testified to similar "hovering" behavior by Brent on...
To continue reading
Request your trial