Cordwell v. Smith
665 P.2d 1081, 105 Idaho 71, 1983 Ida. App. LEXIS 229 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An implied easement by way of necessity does not arise if an alternative, reasonably adequate access route exists, even if it is substantially less convenient. Furthermore, public expenditure on a private road does not make it a public road under I.C. § 40-103 if the public agency expressly recognizes the road's private character and obtains the owner's permission for its use.
Facts:
- Ole Ladd was the common owner of a large tract of land in Little Baldy Creek Canyon, upon which several primitive logging roads (Mack, Ladd, and Nordstrom roads) were built starting around 1930.
- In 1951 and 1954, Ladd sold large parcels to Russell & Pugh Lumber Company, retaining the parcel that the Cordwells would later purchase. These conveyances did not mention any access easements.
- The parcels sold to Russell & Pugh were subsequently subdivided and sold to the appellants in the late 1960s and early 1970s, many of whom purchased their land 'sight unseen'.
- The Cordwells purchased their property in 1968 and have since maintained that the roads traversing their land are private, attempting to control access with a locked gate.
- The Idaho Department of Public Lands performed minor maintenance on the Nordstrom road but did so under written permission agreements with the Cordwells, which recognized the road's private status.
- An alternative access to the appellants' properties exists via the 'French Gulch route,' which connects to a public road but is steep, circuitous, and also difficult to travel, especially in winter.
- Neither the roads on the Cordwells' property nor the French Gulch route are maintained or reliably passable during winter months.
Procedural Posture:
- The Cordwells initiated a quiet title action in an Idaho trial court against multiple defendants, including the appellants, to establish their exclusive ownership of roads on their property.
- The defendants filed counterclaims asserting a right to use the roads, arguing they were public or that they had acquired implied easements.
- The trial court entered judgment in favor of the Cordwells against most defendants, concluding that the roads were private and no easements existed.
- Several of the defendants who lost at trial (appellants) appealed the judgment to the Idaho Court of Appeals.
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 an implied easement by way of necessity arise over a landowner's property when an alternative, albeit more circuitous and difficult, route provides access to the claimants' properties?
Opinions:
Majority - Swanstrom, Judge
No. An implied easement by way of necessity does not arise where claimants have failed to prove a 'great' present necessity for the easement, which requires demonstrating that no other reasonable means of access exists. The court rejected the appellants' claims on all grounds. First, the Nordstrom road did not become public because the state's expenditure of funds for maintenance was done with the express permission of the Cordwells and with recognition of the road's private character, thus I.C. § 40-103 does not apply. Second, no easement arose from 'apparent continuous use' because there was no proof that the common owner, Ladd, used the roads for permanent access after his logging operations ceased and before he severed the properties. Third, and most importantly, no easement by 'way of necessity' was created because the appellants failed to prove a 'great' present necessity. The existence of the French Gulch route, while inconvenient, provided a reasonable alternative access, defeating the claim that the route across the Cordwells' property was strictly necessary. The court balanced the inconveniences and found that since both routes were primitive and not available year-round, the appellants did not meet their burden of proving the practical inability to access their property otherwise.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the high threshold required to establish an implied easement by way of necessity in Idaho, emphasizing that 'necessity' must be more than mere convenience. The decision affirms that the existence of any reasonably adequate alternative access, even if significantly inferior, will defeat a claim of necessity. This strengthens the rights of servient landowners against having their property encumbered. Additionally, the ruling provides a crucial limitation on the statute that creates public roads through public maintenance, establishing that such maintenance does not convert a private road to public if the government entity explicitly recognizes the owner's private rights and acts with permission.
