Summary
The Supreme Court of Nevada held that an easement had not been extinguished by adverse use and that the servient landowner retained authority to promulgate reasonable rules governing the easement. The court held that the district court lacked authority to create such rules under the deed. It also clarified and narrowed prior precedent, ruling that attorney fees as special damages in real-property title disputes are available only in slander of title actions, not merely in actions to remove or clarify a cloud on title.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Jepsen Properties and the Biggs extinguished any portion of the recreational beach easement through adverse use.
- Whether the deed's reservation of authority to prescribe reasonable regulations for the easement survived the original grantor and vested in the servient tenant.
- Whether the district court had authority under the deed to promulgate specific rules governing use of the recreational easement.
- Whether attorney fees were recoverable as special damages in an action to quiet title or remove a cloud on title without a slander-of-title claim.
Holdings
- Jepsen Properties and the Biggs did not extinguish any portion of the recreational easement because the evidence did not establish adverse, continuous, and uninterrupted use for the required five-year prescription period.
- The deed's reservation of the right to prescribe reasonable regulations for safe and proper enjoyment of the easement survived the original grantor and vested in the owner of the servient estate.
- The district court lacked authority under the deed to promulgate specific rules governing the recreational easement in the first instance, although it could determine whether rules adopted by the servient tenant were reasonable.
- Attorney fees are available as special damages in real-property matters only in slander-of-title actions, not merely because a litigant seeks to remove or clarify a cloud on title.
Key quotations
“We now retreat from that statement and hold that in cases concerning title to real property, attorney fees are only allowable as special damages in slander of title actions, not merely when a cloud on the title to real property exists.” (982)
“While we conclude that the right to promulgate rules concerning the reasonable use of the recreational easement under the deed survived the grantor and vested in the servient tenant, the clear language of the deed does not provide the district court with rulemaking authority under the deed.” (986)
“Therefore, we retreat from these statements and now clarify that attorney fees are only available as special damages in slander of title actions and not simply when a litigant seeks to remove a cloud upon title.” (988)
Factual background
Seven neighboring homeowners in Glenbrook, Nevada, disputed ownership, use, and regulation of Golf Links Road and a recreational beach easement known as Parcel 7. The Horgan group and their predecessors had used the recreational easement for activities including walking, picnicking, swimming, boating, and other recreation, while some beachfront owners installed landscaping, sprinkler systems, and fences near the easement. The district court found that the opposing owners had not continuously and adversely used the easement for the required five-year period, but it also promulgated specific rules for the easement and awarded attorney fees to the Horgan group.
Procedural history
The Horgan group filed a complaint for declaratory relief and to quiet title concerning Golf Links Road and a recreational beach easement. Other affected property owners asserted counterclaims and cross-claims involving the easements and adverse possession. After trial, the district court entered judgment, promulgated rules governing easement use, and awarded attorney fees to the Horgan group. The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the rulings that the recreational easement had not been extinguished and that the servient tenant could promulgate reasonable rules, but reversed the district court's rulemaking and attorney-fee awards.
Remand instructions
The portions of the judgment promulgating specific easement-use rules and awarding attorney fees as damages were reversed. The district court remained free to consider whether attorney fees were permissible on another basis.