Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque

Supreme Court of Arkansas
307 Ark. 271, 819 S.W.2d 275 (1991)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

When a landowner creates an apparent, permanent, and reasonably necessary artificial condition on one portion of their land for the benefit of another portion (a quasi-easement), and then sells the benefited portion, the grantee acquires an implied easement to have that condition continued.

Facts:

In the 1920s, Rock Island Railroad built an elevated railroad dump across a large tract of land.
In the 1940s, Reynolds Metal owned the entire tract and integrated the railroad dump into a larger dam system to protect its underground mining operations from flooding by the adjacent Hurricane Creek.
Reynolds Metal continuously used this dam system to protect its operations for many years.
In 1987, Reynolds sold the protected portion of the property, where its mining operations were located, to Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc.
Subsequently, Reynolds sold the portion of the tract containing the elevated railroad dump, which served as the dam, to William and Debra Vocque.
The Vocques removed gravel from the dump, creating a gap in the structure.
This gap caused Hurricane Creek to flood Manitowoc's property, forcing a temporary shutdown of its business.

Procedural Posture:

Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. filed a complaint against William and Debra Vocque in chancery court (a court of first instance with equity jurisdiction).
Manitowoc sought a temporary restraining order, a permanent injunction, and damages for nuisance.
The Vocques filed a motion to dismiss the complaint, arguing they had no affirmative duty to maintain the condition on their land.
The Chancellor granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the court lacked equitable jurisdiction.
Manitowoc appealed the Chancellor's order of dismissal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.

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 landowner state a valid claim for an injunction against a neighboring landowner who alters an artificial water barrier, when both properties were previously owned by a common grantor who created the barrier to benefit the first landowner's property?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice David Newbern

Yes. A landowner states a valid claim for relief when they allege that a neighboring landowner, who purchased from a common grantor, removed an artificial water barrier that was openly in existence and necessary for the enjoyment of the first landowner's property at the time of sale. The court reasoned that when a single owner creates a quasi-easement by using one part of their land to benefit another, and then severs title by selling the benefited (dominant) portion, an implied easement is created. This easement allows the new owner to continue enjoying the benefit if the original use was apparent, permanent, and reasonably necessary. The law presumes that parties contract in reference to the visible condition of the property at the time of the sale. Therefore, Manitowoc's complaint, which alleged a common owner (Reynolds), a severance of title, and an obvious and necessary pre-existing use (the dam), successfully stated a claim for relief based on an implied easement, and the chancery court has jurisdiction to hear claims for injunctions against nuisances.

Analysis:

This decision affirms the doctrine of implied easements from pre-existing use (quasi-easements) in Arkansas property law, particularly as applied to artificial watercourses. It establishes that the physical conditions existing on a property at the time it is severed and sold can create binding legal rights and servitudes on the subsequent owners. The ruling limits a new owner's ability to alter their land if doing so would destroy a visible and necessary benefit that the common grantor had established for a neighboring parcel. This reinforces the principle that purchasers are presumed to buy property subject to the benefits and burdens that are openly and apparently existing at the time of the transaction.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Manitowoc Remanufacturing, Inc. v. Vocque (1991)

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