Aztec Ltd., Inc. v. Creekside Inv. Co.
602 P.2d 64, 100 Idaho 566, 1979 Ida. LEXIS 492 (1979)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prescriptive easement is limited to the use by which it was acquired, and its scope cannot be impermissibly expanded to create an unreasonable burden on the servient estate, such as by drastically increasing the volume of traffic or changing the nature of use from private residential to large-scale commercial.
Facts:
- In 1976, Aztec, Ltd. purchased property in Pocatello, Idaho, and discovered that a small strip of its land lay between the paved portion of Pocatello Creek Road and a private road called Freeman Lane.
- Freeman Lane was a deeded easement created by homeowners to access their 3-4 homes, but this easement terminated at the southern boundary of Aztec's property, creating a gap.
- For many years, these homeowners and their successors crossed the strip of Aztec's land to get from Freeman Lane to Pocatello Creek Road, creating a private prescriptive easement over the gap.
- The City of Pocatello paved and began maintaining Freeman Lane in 1973.
- In 1976, Creekside Investment Company acquired property from the homeowners and began constructing a 200-unit apartment complex.
- Creekside used Freeman Lane, including the prescriptive easement over Aztec's land, as the sole means of access for its large construction project and for the future 200 tenants.
- Creekside also widened the portion of Freeman Lane that crossed Aztec's property.
- Aztec's president, Roger Seaton, informed Creekside that its activities constituted a trespass and demanded they cease, but Creekside continued its project.
Procedural Posture:
- Aztec, Ltd. (plaintiff) commenced an action against Creekside Investment Company (defendant) in the district court (trial court) for trespass, seeking damages and injunctive relief.
- The case was tried before the court, sitting without a jury.
- At the close of Aztec's case, Creekside made a motion for involuntary dismissal (characterized as a 'nonsuit').
- The trial court granted the motion in part, dismissing Aztec's claim for monetary damages on the grounds that no actual damages had been proven.
- After taking the issue under advisement, the trial court denied injunctive relief, concluding that the increased use of the easement did not constitute a trespass.
- Aztec (appellant) appealed the trial court's dismissal of its claim to the Supreme Court of Idaho.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a substantial increase in traffic and a change in the nature of use from serving a few private homes to serving a 200-unit commercial apartment complex, along with a physical widening of the roadway, constitute an impermissible expansion of a private prescriptive easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Bakes, Justice
Yes, a substantial increase in traffic and change in use from serving a few private homes to a 200-unit commercial apartment complex constitutes an impermissible expansion of the prescriptive easement. An easement acquired by prescription is confined to the right as exercised during the prescriptive period and is limited by its purpose. While some evolution in use is permissible if it is foreseeable and does not create an unreasonable burden, changing the use from serving 3-4 homes to a 200-unit commercial apartment complex—an increase by a factor of fifty—is an unreasonable increased burden on the servient estate. Citing its prior holding in Gibbens v. Weisshaupt, the court found this increase far exceeded what could be considered a foreseeable or reasonable change. Furthermore, any physical widening of the prescriptive easement is an impermissible expansion because it has the effect of enveloping additional land not subject to the original prescriptive use.
Dissenting - Shepard, Justice
The justice dissented without providing a written opinion.
Analysis:
This decision significantly clarifies the doctrine governing the scope of prescriptive easements by reinforcing that rights acquired by prescription are strictly limited. It establishes a strong precedent that a change in the character of use, particularly from private residential to large-scale commercial, is likely to be deemed an unreasonable burden and thus an impermissible expansion. The court's distinction between a permissible 'increase in degree' and an impermissible 'expansion' provides a framework for analyzing future disputes over easement use. The holding also creates a clear rule that physically widening a prescriptive easement is a per se impermissible expansion, as it amounts to taking additional land from the servient estate.
