Yorlum Props., Ltd. v. Lincoln Cnty.

• Decision Date: 15 October 2013
• Docket Number: No. DA 12–0707.,DA 12–0707.
• Citation: 372 Mont. 159,311 P.3d 748
• Parties: YORLUM PROPERTIES, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellee, v. LINCOLN COUNTY, a political subdivision, and William and Janet Biggerstaff, Defendants and Appellants.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

372 Mont. 159

311 P.3d 748

YORLUM PROPERTIES, LTD., Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.LINCOLN COUNTY, a political subdivision, and William and Janet Biggerstaff, Defendants and Appellants.

No. DA 12–0707.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted on Briefs July 24, 2013.

Decided Oct. 15, 2013.

For Appellants: Clifton W. Hayden; Hedman, Hileman & LaCosta, PLLP; Whitefish, Montana (for William and Janet Biggerstaff), Bernard G. Cassidy; Lincoln County Attorney; Libby, Montana (for Lincoln County).

For Appellee: Amy N. Guth; Attorney at Law; Libby, Montana.

Justice Laurie McKINNON delivered the Opinion of the Court.

[372 Mont. 160]¶ 1 Carol Miller owned two adjacent parcels of real property in Lincoln County near Eureka, Montana. In March 2005, she conveyed one of the parcels to William and Janet Biggerstaff (the Biggerstaffs). Miller purported in the conveyance to reserve an easement over the Biggerstaffs' parcel for the benefit of Miller's retained parcel. In August 2006, Miller conveyed her retained parcel to Yorlum Properties Ltd. (Yorlum).

¶ 2 Thereafter, a dispute arose among Yorlum, the Biggerstaffs, and Lincoln County concerning the validity of the reserved easement. Yorlum commenced this action in the Nineteenth Judicial District Court, Lincoln County, seeking to quiet title to its property and access rights. The District Court granted summary judgment to Yorlum, and both the Biggerstaffs and Lincoln County now appeal.

¶ 3 We address three issues:

1. Whether the easement over the Biggerstaffs' parcel is valid.

2. Whether Miller lacked title to convey to Yorlum.

3. Whether Yorlum's complaint is barred by equitable principles.

We conclude that Yorlum is entitled to summary judgment on each of these issues, and we accordingly affirm the District Court's decision.

BACKGROUND

¶ 4 Miller's property at issue in this case initially consisted of a 5.534–acre parcel designated “Lot 5” in the Dukes Vista Ridge subdivision, plus an adjacent 35.746–acre parcel north of Lot 5. Access to Lot 5 is provided over Dukes Vista Drive (a cul-de-sac). In 2004, Miller proposed a boundary adjustment to combine her two parcels into one 41.28–acre parcel, designated “Lot 5A.” Lincoln County approved this boundary adjustment on January 10, 2005, as depicted on Amended Plat No. 6576. This plat is shown here, with the boundary of Lot 5A bolded: ¹

IMAGE

[372 Mont. 162]¶ 5 Miller next proposed to divide Lot 5A into two parcels. The northerly parcel, “Lot 5–B,” would be 20.26 acres, and the southerly parcel, “ Lot 5–A–1,” would be 21.00 acres. This division is depicted on Amended Plat No. 6588. The plat, shown below, also depicts a “30' private easement” running northerly through the middle of Lot 5–A–l from the terminus of Dukes Vista Drive to the southern boundary of Lot 5–B.

IMAGE

¶ 6 The Lincoln County Planning Department received objections from neighboring landowners regarding Miller's proposed division of Lot 5A. The landowners claimed that the Dukes Vista Ridge subdivision covenants prohibited further subdivision of any lot. They also claimed that the covenants prohibited access to any further added land using the subdivision's private roads. In this regard, the final plat of the Dukes Vista Ridge subdivision (Plat No. 5846, recorded March 26, 1997) indicates that Dukes Vista Drive and Linda Vista Drive (with which Dukes Vista Drive intersects to the south) are both 60–foot–wide “private” roads.

¶ 7 Despite the landowners' objections, the Lincoln County Board of Commissioners granted preliminary plat approval on February 2, 2005. As a condition of final approval, Miller was expected to resolve the access dispute with her neighbors; however, although Miller contacted several of the landowners, no agreement was reached. Nevertheless, the Board of Commissioners granted final plat approval on February 15, 2005. Amended Plat No. 6588 was recorded that same day. Two weeks later, Miller sold Lot 5–A–1 to the Biggerstaffs by a warranty deed dated March 1, 2005, and recorded March 2, 2005. The deed describes the property being conveyed as “Lot 5–A–l of the Amended Plat of Dukes Vista Ridge Lot 5A, according to the plat thereof on file in the office of the Clerk and Recorder, Lincoln County, Montana. Plat # 6588.”

¶ 8 None of the neighboring landowners appealed, pursuant to § 76–3–625, MCA, from the Board's preliminary approval or final approval of Amended Plat No. 6588. Nor did any of the landowners sue to enforce the subdivision covenants. A number of the landowners, however, appeared at the Board's regular session on April 20, 2005, and reasserted their objections to the division of Lot 5A into two parcels. They claimed that Miller had “manipulated” the law and had employed “tactics” designed to “get[ ] around the legalities of our Covenants.” They asked the Board to return Miller's property to a single 41–acre parcel, or to remove Lot 5–B from the Dukes Vista Ridge subdivision and eliminate the easement over Lot 5–A–l.

¶ 9 On August 24, 2005, the Board of Commissioners executed a document which purports to invalidate the easement over Lot 5–A–1. The document was recorded with the Lincoln County Clerk and Recorder that same day. It states:

NOTICE OF NO AUTHORIZED ROAD ACCESS

Lincoln County hereby asserts that there is NO AUTHORIZED ROAD ACCESS for use of Linda Vista Drive nor access across Lot 5–A–l for the benefit of Lot 5–B of the Amended Plat of Dukes Vista Ridge located in the NE1/4 of Section 14, Twp. 36 N., R. 28 W., P.M.M., all as shown on Amended Plat 6588, Lincoln County records.

No agreement between the original developer of the amended plat and landowners within the Plat of Dukes Vista Drive could be reached for use of Linda Vista Drive for access to Lot 5–B. This was a condition of the approval of the Amended Plat of Dukes Vista Ridge, Amended Plat No. 6588.

¶ 10 Yorlum acquired Lot 5–B from Miller on August 15, 2006. The following year, Yorlum notified the Biggerstaffs that a surveyor would be staking off the easement over Lot 5–A–l and that a roadway would then be constructed to Lot 5–B. The Biggerstaffs responded that “no easement of any kind crosses Lot 5–A–l for the benefit of Lot 5–B.” Additionally, a spokesperson for the property owners in Dukes Vista Ridge subdivision sent Yorlum a letter stating that subdivision roads could not be used to access Lot 5–B. Yorlum attempted to resolve this issue with the landowners, but was not successful.

¶ 11 On March 21, 2011, Yorlum filed the instant action under Title 70, chapter 28, part 1, MCA, seeking a determination that it “is the owner in fee simple of property described in Amended Plat 6588” and “is entitled to subdivision access as described in Amended Plat 6588.” The Biggerstaffs and Lincoln County filed answers, and the parties subsequently filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The District Court determined that the documents of conveyance from Miller to the Biggerstaffs created an easement over Lot 5–A–1 as depicted and labeled on Amended Plat No. 6588. The District Court further ruled that once the Board of Commissioners granted final plat approval, the Board had no statutory authority to then record a “Notice of No Authorized Road Access.” The District Court noted that if Miller or her surveyor in fact misrepresented the legal access in Amended Plat No. 6588, then Lincoln County and any affected landowners could have pursued available remedies under the Montana Subdivision and Platting Act (Title 76, chapter 3, MCA), none of which included placing a cloud over Yorlum'seasement in the form of a Notice of No Authorized Road Access. Finally, the District Court rejected the Biggerstaffs' claim that Yorlum should be equitably precluded from legal access to its lot. The court reasoned that Yorlum took whatever title Miller could lawfully convey and that any awareness Yorlum may have had of the Notice of No Authorized Road Access was not salient to the validity of the Notice or the easement.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

¶ 12 This Court reviews a district court's ruling on a motion for summary judgment de novo, applying the criteria set forth in M.R. Civ. P. 56. Gordon v. Kuzara, 2012 MT 206, ¶ 13, 366 Mont. 243, 286 P.3d 895. Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” M.R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3). Where the material facts are undisputed—as is the case here—the district court must simply identify the applicable law, apply it to the uncontroverted facts, and determine who prevails. Corp. Air v. Edwards Jet Ctr., 2008 MT 283, ¶ 28, 345 Mont. 336, 190 P.3d 1111. The determination as to whether a party is entitled to judgment on the facts is a conclusion of law, which this Court reviews to determine whether it is correct. Gordon, ¶ 13.

DISCUSSION

¶ 13 Issue 1. Whether the easement over the Biggerstaffs' parcel is valid.

¶ 14 Yorlum claims it has an easement by reservation over the Biggerstaffs' property. An easement arises by reservation where a landowner conveys part of his or her property to another but reserves an easement over the transferred property in favor of the landowner's retained property. Blazer v. Wall, 2008 MT 145, ¶ 27, 343 Mont. 173, 183 P.3d 84. A reserved easement may be created only when the dominant and servient estates are split from single ownership. Blazer, ¶¶ 38, 44;Ruana v. Grigonis, 275 Mont. 441, 448–51, 913 P.2d 1247, 1252–54 (1996). Hence, the easement over Lot 5–A–1 was reserved, if at all, when Lot 5A was split from single ownership into two separately owned parcels. That occurred on March 1, 2005, when Miller conveyed Lot 5–A–l to the Biggerstaffs and retained Lot 5–B for herself. Thus, the Miller–Biggerstaff transaction is decisive. Blazer, ¶ 44.

¶ 15 The Miller–Biggerstaff deed contains no language expressly reserving an easement over the conveyed...