Nelson v. Johnson
1984 Ida. LEXIS 460, 679 P.2d 662, 106 Idaho 385 (1984)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An easement reserved for the benefit of a dominant estate is considered appurtenant and runs with the land to subsequent owners. A prescriptive easement can be established for a related but unmentioned access route through open, notorious, continuous, and adverse use under a claim of right for the statutory period.
Facts:
- In 1956, Robert and Majorie Wake owned a single property comprised of a dry farm and a cattle ranch.
- As part of their ranching operation, the Wakes regularly drove cattle over an access road on the farm portion to reach Butler Springs, also on the farm, for water before moving them to adjacent federal grazing land.
- On December 28, 1956, the Wakes sold the farm to Jesse and Maud Hess, reserving in the contract the right to use Butler Springs and a right-of-way eastward from the springs, but the contract did not mention the access road from the county road to the springs.
- In 1963, the Hesses sold the farm to Raymond and Wilma Johnson, who had actual notice of the Wakes' reserved rights.
- In 1964, the Wakes sold their ranch, and all subsequent owners, including the Nelsons who purchased it in 1973, continued to use both the Butler Springs area and the access road.
- Shortly after the Nelsons purchased the ranch, the Johnsons purported to grant them 'permission' to use the road and springs.
- In 1978, the Johnsons sent the Nelsons a letter revoking the purported permission.
- In 1979, the Johnsons placed locks on the gates across the access road, preventing the Nelsons from using it.
Procedural Posture:
- Lyle and Loa Nelson (Nelsons) filed a complaint in district court against Raymond and Wilma Johnson (Johnsons).
- The Nelsons alleged they possessed easement interests in both the Butler Springs area and an access road on the Johnsons' property.
- The district court (trial court) ruled in favor of the Nelsons.
- The trial court held that the Butler Springs easement was appurtenant to the Nelsons' ranch and that a prescriptive easement had been established for the access road.
- The Johnsons, as appellants, appealed the district court's decision to this court, the Idaho 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 subsequent owner of a ranch hold an appurtenant easement for a water source expressly reserved in the original land sale, and a prescriptive easement for an access road used openly and continuously for the statutory period, even if the road was not mentioned in the original reservation?
Opinions:
Majority - Huntley, J.
Yes. A subsequent owner of a ranch holds both an appurtenant easement for a water source expressly reserved in the original land sale and a prescriptive easement for an access road used openly and continuously for the statutory period. Regarding the Butler Springs easement, the court interprets the granting instrument in light of the parties' intent and the circumstances at the time. The language of the reservation and the historical use clearly indicate the easement was intended to benefit the cattle ranch (the dominant estate), not merely the Wakes personally, making it an appurtenant easement that runs with the land. An easement is presumed appurtenant if it is a beneficial and useful adjunct of the dominant estate. Regarding the access road, a prescriptive easement was established because the use by the Nelsons and their predecessors was open, notorious, continuous for over five years (from at least 1956 to 1978), and under a claim of right, with the knowledge of the farm's owners. The Johnsons' own testimony that they believed the ranchers used the road 'by right' confirms the use was not permissive until they attempted to grant permission in 1978, long after the prescriptive period had been met.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal presumption that an easement is appurtenant rather than in gross, promoting the stability and value of land by ensuring that beneficial rights are transferred with the property they serve. The case also provides a clear application of the elements of a prescriptive easement, demonstrating that a landowner's acquiescence to long-standing, open use can result in the loss of their right to exclude. It highlights that a belated attempt to characterize such use as 'permissive' cannot defeat a prescriptive right that has already vested through the passage of the statutory period.
Unlock the full brief for Nelson v. Johnson