No. 13110
I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF' MONTANA
F
DONALD TNGELS and RONI'I'A XNGELS ,
P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s ,
C U U D l k ANN MICKALSON and
TERRANCE LEE MICKALSON,
Defendants and Respondents.
A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel o f Record :
For A p p e l l a n t s :
S m a l l , Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana
C a r l Hatch a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Yor Respondents :
K e l l e r , Reynolds and Drake, Helena, Montana
H e r b e r t George a r g u e d , Helena, Montana
Submitted: March 5 , 1976
Filed: -4j~y. 516
Hon. Robert S. K e l l e r , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e
James T. H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t :
P l a i n t i f f s Donald and B o n i t a I n g e l s b r o u g h t s u i t
a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s C l a u d i a Ann and T e r r a n c e Lee Mickalson,
t o e s t a b l i s h a n easement a c r o s s t h e r e a r p o r t i o n o f a l o t i n
t h e C i t y o f Helena, which ~ i c k a l s o n sa r e p u r c h a s i n g . The c l a i m
i s p r e d i c a t e d upon a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement, o r i n t h e a l t e r -
n a t i v e , a n easement by i m p l i c a t i o n .
The p r o p e r t i e s i n v o l v e d a r e l o t s 20 and 21 o f Block
395, o f Helena T o w n s i t e , l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o e a c h o t h e r on
West Lawrence S t r e e t i n t h e C i t y o f Helena; t h e I n g e l s a r e t h e
owners of l o t 20, t h e l o t t o t h e e a s t , and ~ i c k a l s o n sa r e
buying l o t 21 on a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. P r i o r t o A p r i l 1968,
l o t s 20 and 21 belonged t o t h e same owner, and t h e y were s o l d
a t t h e same t i m e , w i t h l o t 20 b e i n g conveyed t o I n g e l s . By
mesne conveyances, ~ i c k a l s o n sa c q u i r e d , and e n t e r e d i n t o p o s s e s s i o n
o f , l o t 2 1 i n F e b r u a r y 1973, ( f o u r y e a r s and t e n months a f t e r
Ingels acquired t h e i r possession). The l o t s a r e b o r d e r e d on t h e
n o r t h by West Lawrence S t r e e t , and on t h e s o u t h by a n a l l e y ;
~ n g e l s ' l o t i s 42 f e e t wide and 100 f e e t d e e p , and ~ i c k a l s o n s '
l o t a p p e a r s t o b e o f t h e same d i m e n s i o n s , a l t h o u g h n o t m a t e r i a l
here.
On t h e s o u t h e a s t c o r n e r o f ~ n g e l s ' l o t i s a g a r a g e 23 f e e t
l o n g , w i t h t h e b a c k o f t h e g a r a g e on t h e e a s t edge o f t h e
p r o p e r t y l i n e , and t h e s o u t h s i d e o f t h e g a r a g e i s immediately
adjacent t o the alley. The g a r a g e d o o r f r o n t s t o t h e w e s t . On
t h e southwest c o r n e r o f M i c k a l s o n s ' l o t i s a s h e d , and p r i o r
t o A p r i l 1974, t h e r e was n o t h i n g between t h e g a r a g e on I n g e l s '
l o t and t h e shed on ~ i c k a l s o n s ' l o t . On o r a b o u t A p r i l 5 , 1974,
Mickalsons e r e c t e d a f e n c e on t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e between t h e
g a r a g e and t h e s h e d , t o c o n n e c t w i t h an e x i s t i n g f e n c e t h a t had
a l r e a d y been e r e c t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e between t h e two l o t s .
Lngels :ontend t h a t t h e y used heir s a r a g e o n l y by
J r i v i n g a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f ~ i c k a l s o n s 'l o t
where t h e c l e a r s p a c e e x i s t e d between ~ i c k a l s o n s ' shed and
t h e i r g a r a g e ; t h a t t h e y have been d o i n g t h i s e v e r s i n c e t h e y
a c q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n A p r i l 1968, and t h a t t h e y had an
zasement by p r e s c r i p t i o n . I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , I n g e l s contend
i h e y had a n easement by i m p l i c a i ~ i o n ; t h a t when t h e p r o p e r t y
was s o l d t o them i n 1968 by t h e owner of b o t h l o t s , t h e p o s i t i o n
o f t h e g a r a g e makes i t obvious t h a t t h e o n l y way t o u s e t h e
g a r a g e was t o come a c r o s s t h e c o r n e r of t h e a d j a c e n t l o t , and
t h a t s i n c e t h e owner o f b o t h l o t s s o l d l o t 20 t o I n g e l s , t h e r e
was an i m p l i e d easement t o u s e l o t 21 f o r a c c e s s .
The e v i d e n c e o f u s e of ~ i c k a l s o n s ' p r o p e r t y by t h e
LngeLs was i n d i s p u t e a t t h e t r i a l . Undisputed was t h e f a c t
t h a t f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e v a r y i n g from s i x weeks t o two and
A h a l f months, n e a r t h e end of t h e f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d n e c e s s a r y
;u a c q u i r e a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t ( A p r i l 1968 t o A p r i l 1 9 7 3 ) , t h e
Lngels d i d n o t u s e ~ i c k a l s o n s 'p r o p e r t y f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t
JIieof t h e i r v e h i c l e s was parked i n f r o n t o f t h e i r g a r a g e i n a
of) t i m e
;Late o f d i s r e p a i r , and was n o t r e p a i r e d f o r t h a t l e n g t d , b l o c k i n g
a n y u s e o f l n g e l s l p r o p e r t y by I n g e l s . A s f a t e would have i t , t h i s
was d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t a r e a l t o r showed t h e
a d j o i n i n g l o t t o M i c k a l s o n s , and t h e y a c q u i r e d t h e i r p r o p e r t y ,
i.e., t h e r e was c e r t a i n l y no n o t i c e t o anyone a t t h a t t i m e t h a t t h e
lngels were u s i n g ~ i c k a l s o n 's p r o p e r t y .
I t was f u r t h e r u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y by t h e
( n g e l s was n o t h o s t i l e , n o r e x c l u s i v e . Mickalsons t e s t i f i e d t h a t
chey n e v e r saw t h e I n g e l s u s e t h e p r o p e r t y a t any t i m e , b u t t a k i n g
k g e l s ' testimony a t i t s b e s t , they got along e x c e p t i o n a l l y w e l l
w i t h t h e v a r i o u s t e n a n t s o f l o t 21, and t h e u s e of t h e c l e a r s p a c e
k c w e e n t h e shed and t h e g a r a g e was s h a r e d , i . e . , the tenants
7f l o t 21 would d r i v e a c r o s s a p o r t i o n o f l o t 20 t o g e t t o t h e
s h e d , and t h e I n g e l s d r o v e a c r o s s a p o r t i o n 3.E l o t 2 1 !:u ger
t o t h e garage.
Thus, t h e u s e was n e i t h e r c o n t i n u o u s , n o r e x c l u s i v e ,
S c o t t v . Weinheimer, 140 Mont. 554, 374 P.2d 91. The ~ n g e l s '
u s a g e of t h e c l a i m e d r i g h t - o f - w a y was n o t a d v e r s e and h o s t i l e , a s
d i s t i n g u i s h e d from p e r m i s s i v e , Ewan v. S t e n b e r g , Mon t . Y
541 P.2d 6 0 , 32 St.Rep. 864; ~ e n v. B r i d g e s , 123 Mont. 95,
g
The t r i a l judge s o found and t h e r e i s s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e
t o support h i s findings.
T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t o f an easement
by i m p l i c a t i o n , o t h e r t h a n t h a t when t h e I n g e l s a c q u i r e d t h e
p r o p e r t y , t h e g a r a g e was t h e r e . The I n g e l s c i t e , i n t h e i r b r i e f ,
25 Am J u r 2d Easements and L i c e n s e s , $28, a p o r t i o n of which i s
quoted:
"The b a s i s o f t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e a s t o t h e i m p l i -
c a t i o n of an easement from a p r e - e x i s t i n g u s e i s t h e
presumed o r p r o b a b l e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e
conveyance, a s d i s c l o s e d by a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s
s u r r o u n d i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . A presumption f r e q u e n t l y
invoked i s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o n t r a c t e d w i t h a view
t o t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a s i t a c t u a l l y was
a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . Whether a n easement
a r i s e s by i m p l i c a t i o n , however, must depend upon such
matters a s t h e extended c h a r a c t e r of t h e u s e r , t h e
n a t u r e o f t h e property, t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e separated
p a r t s t o e a c h , and t h e e x i s t i n g d e g r e e of n e c e s s i t y f o r
3 i v i n g s u c h c o n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e conveyance a s w i l l g i v e
e f f e c t t o what may b e supposed t o have b e e n , c o n s i d e r i n g
t h e manner of u s e , t h e r e a s o n a b l e intendment of t h e
parties. II
Here, n o t o n l y was t h e r e no such e v i d e n c e , b u t t h e t r i a l
,judge p e r s o n a l l y viewed t h e p r e m i s e s .
The judgment o f t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t i s a f f i r m e d .
T n . Robert S . K e l l e r
D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r
Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n .
W Concur:
e
Justices.