White v. Landerdahl, 80-347

• Decision Date: 15 April 1981
• Docket Number: No. 80-347,80-347
• Parties: Randolph S. WHITE and Nancy R. White, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. John A. LANDERDAHL and Bonnie I. Landerdahl, Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 1145

625 P.2d 1145

191 Mont. 554

Randolph S. WHITE and Nancy R. White, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. John A. LANDERDAHL and Bonnie I. Landerdahl, Defendants and Respondents.

No. 80-347.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs Jan. 29, 1981.

Decided March 18, 1981.

Rehearing Denied April 15, 1981.

William L. Pepper, Bozeman, for plaintiffs and appellants.

Landoe, Brown, Planalp, Kommers & Lineberger, Bozeman, for defendants and respondents.

SHEEHY, Justice.

Plaintiffs Randolph and Nancy White appeal from the judgment of the Eighteenth Judicial District Court, Gallatin County, denying plaintiffs' claim to a roadway easement crossing property owned by defendants John and Bonnie Landerdahl. Following a nonjury trial, the District Court entered findings of fact, and conclusions of law, holding that no implied easement of necessity exists across defendants' property providing access to plaintiffs' property.

Plaintiff attributes two errors to the holding of the District Court for our review:

1. Whether the record contains substantial credible evidence to support the court's refusal to find an implied easement of necessity; and

2. Whether an implied easement of necessity exists by operation of law given the facts of this case?

After a review of the record of this case and the argument of counsel, we affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Randolph White is a Bozeman-area real estate salesman and land developer. In 1974, he and his wife purchased 27 acres of land located near Bozeman Pass and Bridger Bowl ski area. Plaintiffs subdivided the land into a 16-acre south tract and an 11-acre north tract, built a home on the 11-acre tract, and offered both tracts for sale. These two tracts lay to the south of Marchwick Road, the access road. A dirt wagon trail runs from Marchwick Road through the 11-acre tract to the 16-acre tract, providing roadway access to the 16-acre tract. Exhibit No. 13, plaintiffs' sketch of the two tracts, was admitted into evidence to explain the location of the two tracts and the roadway access to the tracts:

NOTE: OPINION CONTAINS TABLE OR OTHER DATA THAT IS NOT VIEWABLE

In 1975, defendants moved to the Bozeman area and began to look for a new home. Defendants toured plaintiffs' properties and decided to purchase the 11-acre tract. Defendants testified at the District Court trial that they preferred this property because of its isolation and pristine nature. In the negotiations between the parties prior to purchase, defendants continuously objected to any use of the wagon trail as a roadway access to the 16-acre tract. Defendants refused to enter into any agreement with plaintiffs including an easement provision for a roadway to serve the adjoining tract. The contract for deed finally agreed to by all parties for the sale of the 11-acre tract provided the following language governing any easements:

"13. Easements. Buyers (defendants) agree to permit no additional easements or encumbrances against said property without the written consent of the sellers (plaintiffs)."

The contract for deed did not make any reference to the wagon trail or its use as an access roadway to the 16-acre tract. Plaintiffs explained to the District Court that the omission of a wagon trail easement provision was due to a mistake. Plaintiffs erroneously thought they had an existing easement crossing the 11-acre tract at the time the contract for deed was executed and the property was sold. This mistake leaves the 16-acre tract landlocked and legally inaccessible. Following unsuccessful attempts to secure access, plaintiffs brought this court action against defendants, requesting the court to hold that an implied roadway easement crosses defendants' property, providing access to the landlocked 16-acre tract.

The District Court refused plaintiffs' request. In a memorandum accompanying its judgment, the court explained its action as follows:

"Was there an implied easement in the instant case?

"An implied easement is a creature of equity. Equity implies out of the graciousness and fairness of its principles an intent to convey or reserve an easement.

"The facts of this case clearly argue against equity implying and thus creating an easement. There were over eight offers and counteroffers between the parties involved as to the question of an easement; and finally and definitely there was a decision by the parties that there was not to be an easement granted (road across the property involved).

"...

"Montana...