Spectra Site Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lawrence
| Citation | 160 Idaho 570,377 P.3d 75 |
| Decision Date | 27 July 2016 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 43082 |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Idaho |
| Parties | SPECTRA SITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent, v. Douglas P. LAWRENCE, Defendants–Appellants. |
SPECTRA SITE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Plaintiff–Respondent,
v.
Douglas P. LAWRENCE, Defendants–Appellants.
Docket No. 43082
Supreme Court of Idaho, Boise, June 2016 Term.
Filed: July 27, 2016
Clark and Feeney, Lewiston, attorneys for appellant. Jeremy Carr argued.
James, Vernon & Weeks, Coeur d'Alene, attorneys for respondent. Susan P. Weeks argued.
W. JONES, Justice
In an appeal arising out of Kootenai County, Douglas and Brenda Lawrence ("the Lawrences") challenge a district court judgment enjoining them from interfering with, impeding, or preventing Spectra Site Communications, Inc. ("Spectra") from using or maintaining Blossom Mountain Road, which traverses the Lawrences' property. Spectra leases property owned by Robert and Mark Hall (the "Halls") located east of the Lawrence property.
After a six-day bench trial, the district court held that Spectra had proven that the Halls have an easement implied by prior use and an easement implied by necessity. Accordingly, the district court found that Spectra, as a lessee of the Halls, was entitled to use and maintain Blossom Mountain Road. The district court also awarded Spectra costs and attorney fees. The Lawrences appealed, arguing, inter alia , that the district court erred in finding that the Halls have the easement upon which Spectra's injunctive relief is based.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
1. Factual Background
All of the property involved in this case is located in Township 50 North, Range 5 West, Boise Meridian, Kootenai County, Idaho. Specifically, the Lawrences and the Halls own property on Blossom Mountain, which is located south of Post Falls, Idaho. The Lawrence property is located in the southeast quarter of Section 21. The Hall property, which Spectra leases, is located in Section 22. Section 21 is directly west of Section 22. Signal Point Road is the only public road that provides access to the private easement road, Blossom Mountain Road. In turn, Blossom Mountain Road provides sole access to all of the property subject to this litigation.
Both the Lawrence property and the Hall property were once part of a larger tract of land owned by Harold and Marlene Funk (the "Funks"). The Funks purchased their property in 1969, which consisted of land in Section 15, Section 21, and Section 22. In 1975, the Funks sold most of their property
to Human Synergistics.1 Seven sales agreements were recorded reflecting the sale of separate parcels of land in Sections 21, 15, and 22. Each of the seven sales agreements included the following language:
5. Subject to and including an ingress egress easement over this and adjoining property, in Said [sic] Sections 21 and 22 owned by the grantor and including an ingress egress easement over portions of Section 21 heretofore granted to the grantors. Said easement shall be over existing roads until such time as all record owners shall agree to the relocation, improvement and/or abandonment of all or any portions of any roads. This easement is also over similar lands in section 15.
The relevant chain of title for the Lawrence property is as follows: Funks to Human Synergistics; Human Synergistics to Johnson & McHugh; Johnson & McHugh to National Associated Properties; National Associated Properties to the Farmanians; and the Farmanians to the Lawrences. The relevant chain of title for the Hall property, which is leased to Spectra, is as follows: Funks to Rasmussen and Chamberlain; Rasmussen and Chamberlain to Van Sky; Van Sky to Switzer Communications; Switzer Communications to Term Corp.; and Term Corp. to the Halls.
2. Procedural Background
This action first reached the Idaho court system in 2003 when Tower Asset Sub Inc. (Spectra's predecessor in interest and hereinafter " Tower ") sought declaratory and injunctive relief after the Lawrences refused to allow it to traverse Blossom Mountain Road. The district court granted Tower summary judgment on its express easement claim, but that judgment was vacated and remanded by this Court. Tower Asset Sub Inc. v. Lawrence , 143 Idaho 710, 715, 152 P.3d 581, 586 (2007) ( Tower I ). Thereafter, Tower merged with Spectra and renewed its motion for summary judgment on the following three easement theories: (1) easement implied by necessity; (2) easement implied by prior use; and (3) easement by prescription. The district court granted summary judgment on all three theories, which the Lawrences appealed. This Court dismissed that appeal as premature because the district court had not yet entered a final judgment from which an appeal could be taken. Tower Asset Sub Inc. v. Lawrence , 149 Idaho 621, 238 P.3d 221 (2010) ( Tower II ).
In 2013, following a six-day bench trial, the district court entered a judgment enjoining the Lawrences from interfering with, impeding, or preventing Spectra, its successors, assigns, agents, servants, contractors, employees or tenants from using or maintaining Blossom Mountain Road. The district court based this judgment on a finding that Spectra proved the existence of an easement implied by prior use and an easement implied by necessity across the Lawrences' property.
This is the second of two cases addressing the same question: Whether the Lawrence property is subject to an implied easement allowing access to property on its eastern side. In the first case, Capstar Radio Operating Co. v. Lawrence , 160 Idaho 452, 375 P.3d 282 (2016), we held that the district court did not err in determining that Capstar Radio Operating Company ("Capstar") had an easement implied by prior use over Blossom Mountain Road as it traverses the Lawrence property. Id. at 458, 375 P.3d 282. Capstar's property is located in Section 22, near the Halls' property. Blossom Mountain Road provides sole access to both properties. While the respondents in Capstar differ from those in the present case, the cases share common facts, witnesses, issues, and appellants.2
II. ISSUES ON APPEAL
1. Whether the district court erred in finding that Spectra has standing to seek injunctive relief in order to prevent the Lawrences from interfering with its right to use Blossom Mountain Road.
2. Whether the district court erred in granting Spectra a permanent injunction based upon the Halls' easement implied by prior use.
3. Whether the district court erred in determining the scope of the easement.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW
"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...
To continue reading
Request your trial