Thompson v. E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC
657 N.W.2d 300, 2003 S.D. LEXIS 12, 2003 SD 12 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish an implied easement from prior use, a claimant must prove that the use is reasonably necessary for the proper enjoyment of the property, which is a higher standard than mere convenience.
Facts:
- Paul Bjornsen originally owned a single tract of land that included both the property now operating as Fanny Horner’s Eating Establishment and the adjacent Palace Mall.
- During this period of unified ownership, the area that is now the mall parking lot was used by restaurant patrons for parking and by delivery trucks for access.
- On November 14, 1974, Bjornsen severed the properties, deeding the restaurant property to its current owners.
- After the sale, restaurant customers and delivery trucks continued to use the mall parking lot for parking and access for over twenty years.
- The restaurant property has its own separate street access and parking areas on both sides of the building.
- The current mall owner, E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC, contracted to sell a portion of the parking lot used by the restaurant to be developed into an auto parts store.
- The restaurant owners allege that their own driveway cannot accommodate large delivery trucks, making the mall lot the only viable access point for such vehicles.
Procedural Posture:
- The owners of Fanny Horner's Eating Establishment sued E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC in a South Dakota circuit court (the trial court), seeking a judgment declaring they had a right to use the mall's parking lot.
- The mall owner filed a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the restaurant's claims.
- At the hearing, the restaurant owners argued for both a prescriptive easement and an implied easement.
- The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of E.I.G. Palace Mall, LLC, concluding that the restaurant owners had established neither a prescriptive nor an implied easement.
- The restaurant owners (appellants) appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Supreme Court of South Dakota.
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 from prior use exist for customer parking and delivery truck access on an adjacent lot when the claimant's property has its own parking and street access, but evidence suggests the adjacent lot may be necessary for large truck deliveries?
Opinions:
Majority - Konenkamp, Justice
No, as to customer parking, but the claim is remanded for trial as to delivery truck access. An implied easement from prior use requires the use to be reasonably necessary for the beneficial enjoyment of the land, not merely convenient. The court found that using the mall lot for customer parking was a mere convenience because the restaurant has its own parking and street access. However, the restaurant owners raised a genuine issue of material fact by asserting that the mall lot is the only access point for large delivery trucks, which could satisfy the necessity requirement. Therefore, summary judgment was appropriate for the customer parking claim but inappropriate for the delivery truck access claim.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'necessity' element for an implied easement from prior use in South Dakota, establishing that 'reasonable necessity' is a standard greater than 'mere convenience.' The court's split ruling highlights the fact-intensive nature of this inquiry. By affirming summary judgment on the convenience-based parking claim but reversing on the potentially necessary delivery access claim, the court sets a precedent that operational necessities of a business may establish an easement where customer convenience cannot. This will require future courts to scrutinize the practical realities of a claimed use to determine if it meets the threshold for necessity.
