Jerry Machado and Terry Machado v. Charles L. Ryan and Carol Ryan, Trustees of the Charles and Carol Ryan Trust

Summary

The Idaho Supreme Court reviewed competing claims to easements over property in Benewah County, including express easement, easement by necessity, easement implied by prior use, and prescriptive easement theories. The court reversed the finding of an express easement and the easement by necessity benefiting the Ryan property, while affirming the easement by necessity benefiting the Jones property. It also affirmed the fourteen-foot width of the Jones easement, vacated the snow-removal easement determination, and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

1. The deed conveying the eastern half of the relevant tract to Clifton was unambiguous and did not create an express easement. Language stating that the conveyance was subject to an easement of record did not, by itself, establish an intent to burden the property with an easement.
2. The Ryan property did not have a great present necessity for an easement over the Machado and Clifton properties because Flat Creek Road crossed the Ryan parcel and provided access to it.
3. The Jones property was entitled to an easement implied by necessity over the Clifton and Machado properties.
4. The fourteen-foot width of the easement benefiting the Jones property was supported by substantial and competent evidence and was affirmed.
5. The district court's fifteen-foot snow-removal easement on each side of Shamrock Lane could not stand because the court made no specific findings supporting its width and did not evaluate the burden on the servient estate based on circumstances existing when the easement was created.
6. The district court was required on remand to decide the Ryans' claims for an easement implied by prior use and an easement by prescription.
7. On remand, the district court was to determine whether the Ryans proved the elements of a prescriptive easement during a five-year period before July 1, 2006; the amended twenty-year period did not apply to an easement acquired before the amendment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the deeds and related writings created an express easement over the Machado and Clifton properties.
2. Whether the requirements for an easement implied by necessity were satisfied for the Ryan property.
3. Whether an easement implied by necessity existed for the Jones property.
4. Whether the district court's fourteen-foot width determination and fifteen-foot snow-removal easement were supported by the evidence and properly limited by the burden on the servient estate.
5. Whether the district court erred by failing to rule on the claims for an easement implied by prior use and an easement by prescription.
6. What prescriptive period applied to the Ryans' claim after the Idaho Legislature amended the statutory period from five years to twenty years.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded