Lexplug logoLexplug

Graves v. Dennis

South Dakota Supreme Court
691 N.W.2d 315, 2004 SD 137 (2004)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An easement created by grant is extinguished by abandonment when there is a combination of nonuse of the easement and an affirmative act by the easement's owner, or with their assent, that is incompatible with the easement's nature or exercise, such as the creation and exclusive use of a substitute easement.


Facts:

  • In 1978, the Blenners, owners of Lot 11 and the south portion of Lot 1, granted an easement across Lot 11 to the owners of the north portion of Lot 1 for access to Pine Tree Drive (the '1978 easement').
  • There is no evidence that the 1978 easement was ever used.
  • The Blenners subsequently sold Lot 11 to Vaughn and acquired ownership of both the north and south portions of Lot 1.
  • In 1981, the Blenners obtained a new easement from Vaughn across Lot 11 to provide access for their now-combined Lot 1 (the '1981 easement').
  • The Blenners, and their successors Gary W. and Patricia A. Graves, exclusively used the 1981 easement and were unaware of the 1978 easement's existence.
  • While Vaughn owned Lot 11, he built a two-stall garage directly on the path of the unused 1978 easement after consulting with the Graves, who did not object.
  • In 2002, Thomas R. and Carla Sue Dennis purchased Lot 11.
  • Beginning in 2003, the Dennis's created speed dips on the 1981 easement road, impairing the Graves' access to their property.

Procedural Posture:

  • Gary and Patricia Graves sued Thomas and Carla Sue Dennis in a South Dakota circuit court (court of first instance), seeking a declaratory judgment on their rights to the 1981 easement.
  • During the litigation, the Graves discovered the 1978 easement and amended their complaint to seek a ruling on it as well.
  • Following a bench trial, the circuit court found that the Dennis's had obstructed the 1981 easement and ordered the obstructions removed.
  • The circuit court also ruled that the 1978 easement had been legally abandoned.
  • The Graves (as appellants) appealed the circuit court's ruling on the abandonment of the 1978 easement to the Supreme Court of South Dakota; the Dennis's (as appellees) did not appeal any part of the ruling.

Locked

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 the creation and exclusive use of a new easement, combined with the complete nonuse of a previously granted easement and assent to an obstruction being built upon it, constitute an act of abandonment that extinguishes the prior easement under South Dakota law?


Opinions:

Majority - Konenkamp, Justice

Yes, the creation and exclusive use of the new easement, combined with nonuse of the prior easement, constitutes abandonment. Under South Dakota statute SDCL 43-13-12, a servitude is extinguished by an act incompatible with its nature or exercise. While mere nonuse is insufficient to extinguish an easement, it can be abandoned if there is an affirmative act showing intent to do so. Here, the complete nonuse of the 1978 easement for over two decades, coupled with the affirmative acts of creating a substitute easement in 1981 and using it exclusively, provides clear and convincing evidence of an intent to abandon. Furthermore, the Graves' assent to Vaughn building a garage directly on the 1978 easement path was an act incompatible with the easement's continued existence. Therefore, the combination of these factors was sufficient for the trial court to find the 1978 easement was abandoned and extinguished.



Analysis:

This case clarifies the requirements for easement abandonment by conduct in South Dakota. It establishes that while nonuse alone is not enough, the creation and exclusive use of a substitute route can serve as the necessary 'affirmative act' incompatible with the original easement's purpose. The decision emphasizes that courts will look at the totality of the circumstances and infer an intent to abandon from a long period of nonuse combined with actions that suggest the original easement is no longer needed or intended to be used. This provides a clear precedent for resolving disputes over old, unused easements where a new, practical alternative has been established and relied upon.

G

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Graves v. Dennis (2004)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"