Borton v. Forest Hills Country Club
926 S.W.2d 232, 1996 WL 410727, 1996 Mo. App. LEXIS 1307 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A recorded deed restriction granting a right of entry for a specific, limited purpose creates an express easement that runs with the land. However, the existence of such an easement does not preclude the landowner from bringing a nuisance claim if the current use of the easement imposes a greater burden than was originally contemplated or intended.
Facts:
- In 1963, a developer recorded a set of deed restrictions on all residential lots adjacent to the Forest Hills Country Club golf course.
- Paragraph 11 of the restrictions stated that property owners shall allow a golfer or caddy the privilege of retrieving errant golf balls, provided care is exercised to prevent damage.
- In March 1994, Gene and Deborah Borton purchased a residence adjacent to the eleventh hole of the golf course.
- The Bortons' general warranty deed explicitly stated that their property was subject to the recorded deed restrictions and covenants.
- Following their purchase, thousands of errant golf balls from the club's course were hit onto the Bortons' property.
Procedural Posture:
- Gene and Deborah Borton (plaintiffs) filed a petition in trial court against Forest Hills Country Club (defendant) for nuisance, seeking injunctive relief and money damages.
- Forest Hills filed a counterclaim, seeking a declaratory judgment that it possessed an easement over the Bortons' property.
- Both parties filed motions for summary judgment regarding the counterclaim for an easement.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Forest Hills, declaring that a broad easement existed, and also dismissed the Bortons' nuisance claims with prejudice.
- The Bortons, as appellants, appealed the trial court's judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals. Forest Hills Country Club is the appellee.
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 deed restriction granting the privilege of retrieving errant golf balls create an express easement that is strictly limited by the specific terms of the restriction, and does the existence of this easement automatically bar the landowner from suing for nuisance due to an excessive number of golf balls on their property?
Opinions:
Majority - Ahrens, J.
Yes. A deed restriction granting retrieval rights creates an express easement whose scope is strictly defined by the language of the restriction, and the existence of this easement does not automatically bar a nuisance claim if its use imposes a greater burden than originally intended. The recorded deed restriction created a property interest that runs with the land, making it an easement rather than a revocable license. However, the trial court erred in defining this easement too broadly as a right 'to hit errant golf balls' onto the property. The easement's scope is strictly limited by the explicit terms of Paragraph 11, which include restrictions on who can retrieve balls, the context of the game, and the duty of care. Furthermore, the trial court wrongly dismissed the Bortons' nuisance claims on the assumption that the easement was a complete defense. A landowner may still recover for nuisance if they can demonstrate that the easement holder's current use constitutes a greater burden on the land than what was contemplated when the easement was created. Therefore, the nuisance claims must be reinstated and considered on their merits.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the critical distinction between the existence of an easement and the permissible scope of its use. It establishes that an easement is not a complete defense to a nuisance claim; rather, the servient landowner retains the right to challenge uses that unreasonably overburden their property beyond the original intent of the grant. This precedent protects landowners from an escalating or unforeseen intensification of an easement's use, ensuring that the rights of both the easement holder and the property owner are balanced. The ruling is significant for properties burdened by easements for potentially disruptive activities, affirming that reasonableness and original intent are key factors in determining the lawful extent of the easement's use.
Unlock the full brief for Borton v. Forest Hills Country Club