Summary
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed whether the Secret Gulch Road Easement was an easement appurtenant or an easement in gross. The court held that the easement was appurtenant, with Government Lot 3 as the servient estate and Government Lot 7 as the dominant estate, and concluded that Wilkinson had the right to use it. The court reversed the District Court’s order denying injunctive relief and awarding costs and attorney’s fees.
Holdings
- The Secret Gulch Road Easement is appurtenant, not in gross, with Government Lot 3 as the servient estate and Government Lot 7 as the dominant estate.
- Wilkinson, as successor owner of Government Lot 7, acquired the right to use the Secret Gulch Road Easement.
Questions Presented
- Whether the Secret Gulch Road Easement was appurtenant to Government Lot 7 or was an easement in gross.
- Whether the easement documents and subsequent conveyances identified the dominant and servient estates with reasonable certainty and conveyed the easement's benefit to Wilkinson.
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (6)
- Mary J. Baker Revocable Trust v. Cenex Harvest States, Coops., Inc., 2007 MT 159, ¶¶ 18-19, 338 Mont. 41, 164 P.3d 851(followed)
- Blazer v. Wall, 2008 MT 145, ¶¶ 22, 24, 26, 31, 343 Mont. 173, 183 P.3d 84(followed)
- Broadwater Dev., L.L.C. v. Nelson, 2009 MT 317, ¶ 34, 352 Mont. 401, 219 P.3d 492(followed)
- Whitefish Congregation of Jehovah's Witnesses, Inc. v. Caltabiano, 2019 MT 228, ¶¶ 26-28, 33, 397 Mont. 284, 449 P.3d 812(followed)
- Yorlum Props., Ltd. v. Lincoln County, 2013 MT 298, ¶ 18, 372 Mont. 159, 311 P.3d 748(followed)
- Benson v. Pyfer, 240 Mont. 175, 783 P.2d 923 (1989)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…