Upper Wagon Box, LLC v. Box Hanging Three Ranch Ltd. P'ship
| Decision Date | 12 December 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-0209 |
| Citation | 521 P.3d 551 |
| Parties | UPPER WAGON BOX, LLC, Appellant (Defendant), v. BOX HANGING THREE RANCH LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
| Court | Wyoming Supreme Court |
Representing Appellant: James R. Salisbury, The Salisbury Firm, P.C., Cheyenne, Wyoming; Katherine A. Strike, Stanbury & Strike, P.C., Lander, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Salisbury.
Representing Appellee: Erika M. Nash and Aaron J. Lyttle, Long Reimer Winegar LLP, Jackson, Wyoming. Argument by Ms. Nash.
Before FOX, C.J., and KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, GRAY, and FENN, JJ.
[¶1] Upper Wagon Box, LLC's (Upper Wagon Box) predecessor granted a right-of-way and access easement (Easement) over a 20-foot-wide strip of property connecting a public road to land now owned by Box Hanging Three Ranch Limited Partnership (Box Hanging Three). Upper Wagon Box denied Box Hanging Three access across the Easement, claiming the Easement was in gross, and it provided access only to Box Hanging Three's predecessor in interest. Box Hanging Three filed an action for declaratory judgment and quiet title. The district court granted summary judgment to Box Hanging Three, concluding that the Easement is appurtenant and continues to benefit Box Hanging Three. We affirm.
[¶2] Is the Easement appurtenant for the benefit of land owned by Box Hanging Three, or is it in gross and personal to Box Hanging Three's predecessor in interest?
[¶3] The facts are undisputed. Between 1971 and 1998, the predecessors in interest to Box Hanging Three, Sylvia Crouter and Jay Hodgson (Crouter), wife and husband, acquired approximately 1000 acres of land from Upper Wagon Box's predecessor, Wagon Box Ranch Co. These acres can be broken into distinct parcels designated in this appeal as Parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, and G. Crouter separately acquired other land, not germane to this appeal, designated as Parcel H. The location of the parcels and the Easement are shown on the following map.1
Parcels A and H lie north of the Wind River (depicted in blue). Parcels B through G lie south of the Wind River and south of Warm Springs Creek (depicted in green). The disputed Easement (depicted in red) is located on property now owned by Upper Wagon Box and adjoins Parcel G.
[¶4] Wagon Box Ranch Co. conveyed Parcel A to Crouter in 1971. Crouter acquired Parcel H in 1975. In October 1989, Wagon Box Ranch Co. and Crouter entered into a contract concerning the remaining parcels entitled "Memorandum of Agreement for Warranty Deed and Memorandum of Options to Purchase" (the 1989 Contract). The 1989 Contract contained Wagon Box Ranch Co.’s commitment to convey Parcel C to Crouter and gave Crouter a series of successive options to purchase Parcels B, D, E, F, and G. The option structure was designed so that Crouter would first purchase property most distant from land not subject to option and retained by Wagon Box Ranch Co. Crouter would only acquire the land adjoining Wagon Box Ranch Co.’s retained land, Parcel G, after all other optioned parcels had been purchased. The 1989 Contract also provided for an easement across Wagon Box Ranch Co.’s retained land and a license providing access to Parcel C across the remaining parcels subject to the options. In 1989, Crouter's only access to Parcel C and the optioned parcels was through Wagon Box Ranch Co.’s retained property via the Easement and the license. The Easement included a wooden bridge across Warm Springs Creek (the Bridge).2
[¶5] On March 7, 1990, approximately five months after executing the 1989 Contract, Wagon Box Ranch Co. conveyed Parcel C and the Easement to Crouter. On the same day, Crouter exercised their first option and acquired Parcel B. The Easement provided:
Wagon Box Ranch Co. ... does hereby grant ... unto [Crouter], Grantees, ... a nonexclusive right-of-way and access easement over and across the [20-foot-wide strip of land from the east side of the bridge across Warm Springs Creek, across Wagon Box property, to the north side of the bridge across the Wind River] providing access to the premises abutting said right-of-way, including the right of ingress, egress, and regress.
The legal description of the Easement is identical to the legal description set forth in the 1989 Contract. Supra note 1.
[¶6] On June 15, 1990, in compliance with the terms of the 1989 Contract, Wagon Box Ranch Co. entered into a license agreement3 with Crouter. The license agreement states that "in consideration of the sale and purchase of" Parcel C, the parties agree:
The license provided access to Parcel C (and the first exercised option parcel, Parcel B) through Parcels E, F, and G. Between September 1990 and August 1998, Crouter exercised the remaining options and purchased Parcels D, E, F, and G. Supra ¶ 4. In April 1999, Crouter conveyed all the parcels it had purchased from Wagon Box Ranch Co. to Box Hanging Three. In 2013, Wagon Box Ranch Co. conveyed the property subject to the Easement to Upper Wagon Box.4 The transfers are summarized as follows:
| 05/21/1962 | Wagon Box Ranch Co. acquired Parcels A through G |
| 08/18/1971 | Parcel A conveyed to Crouter by Wagon Box Ranch Co. |
| 1975 | Parcel H acquired by Crouter from third party |
| 10/17/1989 | 1989 Option Contract executed by Wagon Box Ranch Co. and Crouter providing: |
| • Agreement to sell Parcel C | |
| • Agreement for the Easement | |
| • Agreement for a license over Parcels E, F, and G | |
| • Options for Crouter to purchase Parcels B, D, E, F, and G | |
| 03/07/1990 | Crouter acquired: |
| • Parcel B | |
| • Parcel C | |
| • The Easement | |
| 06/15/1990 | Crouter acquired the license over Parcels E, F, & G |
| 09/28/1990 | Parcel D acquired by Crouter |
| 06/16/1993 | Parcel E acquired by Crouter |
| 05/05/1998 | Parcel F acquired by Crouter |
| 08/28/1998 | Parcel G acquired by Crouter and pursuant to the parties’ agreement the license expired |
| 04/01/1999 | Crouter conveyed Parcels A, B, C, D, E, F, and G to Box Hanging Three |
| 06/10/2013 | Wagon Box Ranch Co. conveyed the property subject to the Easement to Upper Wagon Box |
[¶7] In 2017, Warm Springs Creek flooded, damaging the Bridge. Upper Wagon Box removed the Bridge and did not reconstruct it. Without the Bridge, Box Hanging Three can no longer use the Easement as a means of ingress and egress to its property.5 Box Hanging Three filed a Complaint requesting a declaratory judgment addressing the parties’ rights and obligations regarding the Easement and seeking to quiet title. Upper Wagon Box answered and asserted counterclaims for declaratory relief, quiet title, and ejectment. At issue was whether the Easement was in gross and personal to Crouter or whether it was an easement appurtenant. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor Box Hanging Three, ruling that the Easement was appurtenant and perpetual and that the Bridge is a reasonable improvement necessary for Box Hanging Three's enjoyment of the Easement. Upper Wagon Box timely appeals.
[¶8] "We review the district court's order granting summary judgment de novo and can affirm on any legal grounds provided in the record." Page v. Meyers , 2021 WY 73, ¶ 9, 488 P.3d 923, 926 (Wyo. 2021) (citing Burns v. Sam , 2021 WY 10, ¶ 7, 479 P.3d 741, 743 (Wyo. 2021) ); see also Four B Properties, LLC v. Nature Conservancy , 2020 WY 24, ¶ 26, 458 P.3d 832, 839–40 (Wyo. 2020).
[W]e review a summary judgment in the same light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards. We examine the record from the vantage point most favorable to the party opposing the motion, and we give that party the benefit of all favorable inferences that may fairly be drawn from the record.
Page , ¶ 9, 488 P.3d at 926 (quoting Burns , ¶ 7, 479 P.3d at 744 ).
[¶9] Summary judgment is appropriate when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. "A genuine issue of material fact exists when a disputed fact, if it were proven, would establish or refute an essential element of a cause of action or a defense that the parties have asserted."
Wood v. CRST Expedited, Inc. , 2018 WY 62, ¶ 8, 419 P.3d 503, 506 (Wyo. 2018) (quoting Fugle v. Sublette Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 9 , 2015 WY 98, ¶ 5, 353 P.3d 732, 734 (Wyo. 2015) (citing W.R.C.P. 56(c) ; Metz Beverage Co. v. Wyoming Beverages, Inc. , 2002 WY 21, ¶ 9, 39 P.3d 1051, 1055 (Wyo. 2002) )).
[¶10] Upper Wagon Box claims the Easement was an easement in gross, personal to Crouter. Upper Wagon Box argues that when the Easement was conveyed Crouter did not own Parcel G, which abutted the burdened estate, and therefore, the Easement did not follow the land.
[¶11] An easement is a nonpossessory interest in land that entitles the easement holder to a right of limited use in another's property. BNSF Ry. Co. v. Box Creek Min. Ltd. P'ship , 2018 WY 67, ¶ 18, 420 P.3d 161, 166 (Wyo. 2018) ; Hasvold v. Park Cnty. Sch. Dist. No. 6 , 2002 WY 65, ¶ 13, 45 P.3d 635, 638 (Wyo. 2002) ; Baker v. Pike , 2002 WY 34, ¶ 11, 41 P.3d 537, 541 (Wyo. 2002). Easements differ from licenses Baker , ¶ 11, 41 P.3d at 541 (citing Jon W. Bruce & James W. Ely, Jr., The Law of Easements and Licenses in Land § 1:4 (2001)).
[¶12] Easements may be appurtenant or in gross. An easement is appurtenant "when the easement is created to benefit and does benefit the possessor of the land in his use of the land." Gayhart Tr. of Tiphany L. Gayhart Living Tr. dated Oct....
To continue reading
Request your trial