Methonen v. Stone
1997 Alas. LEXIS 102, 941 P.2d 1248, 1997 WL 400039 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A purchaser of real property may be bound by an unrecorded easement under the doctrines of inquiry notice or implied easement. Inquiry notice arises when a purchaser is aware of visible facts that would lead a reasonably prudent person to investigate a potential adverse interest, while an implied easement arises from a prior use that was apparent, continuous, and reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the dominant estate.
Facts:
- In 1970, Howard and Daniel Hede subdivided a tract of land, drilled a water well on Lot 10, and installed water lines to supply Lots 1 through 10.
- The Hedes recorded a subdivision plat that indicated the well's location but did not disclose its function as a water source for the other lots.
- In October 1974, the Hedes sold Lot 10 to Fermo Albertini and executed a private 'Water Agreement' to continue the water service, which was not recorded at that time.
- After several transfers, Kathryn Ostrosky conveyed Lot 10 to Marcus and Gwendolyn Methonen in January 1976.
- At the time of purchase, Methonen was aware of the well on his property and the water pipes running from it to the other lots in the subdivision.
- Shortly after taking title, Methonen learned his neighbors believed he was obligated to provide them with water and he accepted money from them for the water system.
- In February 1985, Methonen shut off the water supply, and the 1974 Water Agreement was subsequently recorded.
- In July 1994, Methonen again discontinued water service to the other lots, now owned by parties including Rick Stone and Robert Talmage.
Procedural Posture:
- Rick Stone and Robert Talmage sued Marcus Methonen in the superior court (the trial court).
- The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction to prevent Methonen from interfering with their water supply, as well as damages.
- Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.
- The superior court granted summary judgment in favor of Stone and Talmage, ruling that an easement was created by Methonen's deed.
- Methonen, as the appellant, appealed the superior court's judgment to the Supreme Court of Alaska.
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 purchaser of land, who is aware of a well and visible water lines running from it to neighboring lots, take the property subject to an unrecorded community water agreement under the doctrines of inquiry notice or implied easement, even if the deed does not expressly create such an easement?
Opinions:
Majority - Rabinowitz, Justice
No, an easement was not created by the deed's 'subject to' clause or post-purchase acknowledgments, but genuine issues of material fact exist as to whether an easement can be established through the doctrines of inquiry notice or implied easement. The superior court erred in granting summary judgment because the ambiguous language in Methonen's deed and the subdivision plat was insufficient to create an express easement or provide constructive notice of the water agreement. However, Methonen is not entitled to summary judgment either. Methonen's awareness of the well and the visible water lines at the time of purchase was sufficient to place him on inquiry notice, creating a duty to investigate the existence of an adverse interest beyond simply relying on the real estate agent's assurances. Furthermore, the record raises questions of fact as to whether an implied easement exists, based on whether the water system's use was manifest, continuous, and reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the neighboring lots at the time the original estate was severed.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces that purchasers of real property cannot ignore visible signs of use by others and have an affirmative duty to investigate them. It clarifies that the 'actual notice' exception in recording statutes can be satisfied by common law doctrines like inquiry notice, preventing a purchaser from claiming ignorance when observable facts suggest an unrecorded interest. The case illustrates that even without a perfectly recorded chain of title, property rights can be established through implied easements based on prior, apparent, and necessary use. This places a significant burden on buyers to conduct thorough physical inspections of property, as they may be bound by unwritten obligations suggested by the physical state of the land.
