No. 14325
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1979
JOSEPH LeROY GARRETT, et al.,
Plaintiff and Respondent,
-vs-
LESLIE F. JACKSON et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Fifth Judicial District,
Honorable James Freebourn, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Schulz, Davis and Warren, Dillon, Montana
John Warren argued, Dillon, Montana
For Respondent :
R. Thomas Garrison argued, Virginia City, Montana
Submitted: September 24, 1979
Mr. J u s t i c e Gene B. Daly d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n o f t h e C o u r t .
his a p p e a l i s b r o u g h t by L e s l i e and B e t t y J a c k s o n from
a decree of t h e D i s t r i c t Court, F i f t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t ,
d e c l a r i n g J o s e p h G a r r e t t t h e owner o f a p r e s c r i p t i v e ease-
ment o f way o v e r t h e i r l a n d i n Madison County, Montana. The
s o l e i s s u e o n a p p e a l i s whether t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o
t h e D i s t r i c t Court supports i t s f i n d i n g t h a t G a r r e t t ' s use
w a s a d v e r s e t o t h e t i t l e s o f J a c k s o n s and t h e i r p r e d e c e s s o r s
i n i n t e r e s t and was n o t m e r e l y p e r m i s s i v e .
I n 1895 J o s e p h and Sam Heggenberger b u i l t a s l a u g h t e r -
h o u s e o n a t r a c t o f l a n d i m m e d i a t e l y n o r t h o f M i l l Creek.
They s o l d t h e t r a c t i n 1917 t o W a l t e r E l l i n g h o u s e , who
o p e r a t e d t h e s l a u g h t e r h o u s e u n t i l 1946 when G a r r e t t and h i s
w i f e purchased t h e land. Garrett continued t h e slaughter-
house o p e r a t i o n s u n t i l 1962 and r e m a i n s t h e owner o f t h e
tract. G a r r e t t ' s land, r e f e r r e d t o as t h e "slaughterhouse
t r a c t , " i s s e p a r a t e d from t h e c o u n t y r o a d by a s t r i p o f l a n d
known a s t h e " f r o n t a g e t r a c t . " When G a r r e t t p u r c h a s e d t h e
s l a u g h t e r h o u s e t r a c t i n 1946, t h e f r o n t a g e t r a c t w a s owned
by W i l l i a m D a n i e l s . ~ a n i e l s ' s u c c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t are
Glen Marsh, who owned t h e t r a c t u n t i l 1971, and t h e p r e s e n t
owners, t h e J a c k s o n s .
S i n c e t h e s l a u g h t e r h o u s e o p e r a t i o n s began i n 1895, t h e
owners o f t h e s l a u g h t e r h o u s e t r a c t have g a i n e d access t o
t h e i r l a n d by c r o s s i n g t h e f r o n t a g e t r a c t from t h e c o u n t y
road. A wooden b r i d g e spanned M i l l Creek p e r m i t t i n g v e h i -
c u l a r t r a f f i c o n t o t h e s l a u g h t e r h o u s e t r a c t u n t i l a b o u t 1968
when i t w a s weakened by f l o o d i n g .
U n t i l 1958 t h e f r o n t a g e t r a c t was u n e n c l o s e d , b u t i n
t h a t y e a r Marsh began r a i s i n g s h e e p and c o n s t r u c t e d a w i r e
f e n c e around t h e t r a c t t o h o l d them on h i s l a n d . when h e
b u i l t t h e f e n c e , Marsh d i d n o t l e a v e a gateway a l o n g t h e
county road. C o n s e q u e n t l y , when G a r r e t t a t t e m p t e d t o g e t
o n t o h i s t r a c t h e was c o n f r o n t e d by a s o l i d f e n c e . Garrett
s e l e c t e d a p o i n t on t h e f e n c e a b o u t 100 f e e t e a s t of t h e
r o u t e which he had p r e v i o u s l y f o l l o w e d , c u t t h e w i r e s of t h e
f e n c e , and proceeded t h r o u g h . He t w i s t e d t h e w i r e s t o g e t h e r
behind him t o keep t h e s h e e p from e s c a p i n g , and l a t e r n o t i -
f i e d Marsh of what h e had done. Marsh w a s u p s e t o v e r Gar-
r e t t ' s a c t i o n , b u t l a t e r agreed t o p l a c e a "drop wire" g a t e
i n t h e f e n c e a t t h e p o i n t where G a r r e t t had c l i p p e d t h e
wires. Marsh o f f e r e d t o p l a c e a g a t e a t t h e p o i n t where
G a r r e t t had p r e v i o u s l y e n t e r e d t h e f r o n t a g e t r a c t , b u t n e v e r
c o n s t r u c t e d such a n entryway. G a r r e t t continued t o use t h e
new r o u t e a c r o s s f o r t h e n e x t 12 y e a r s u n t i l 1971, even
though t h e r e g u l a r s l a u g h t e r h o u s e b u s i n e s s c e a s e d i n t h e
e a r l y 1960's.
There w a s e v i d e n c e t h a t when t h e J a c k s o n s p u r c h a s e d t h e
f r o n t a g e t r a c t i n 1971 G a r r e t t r e q u e s t e d a w r i t t e n e a s e m e n t ,
which t h e y r e f u s e d . However, G a r r e t t c o n t i n u e d t o u s e t h e
g a t e b u i l t by Marsh, d r i v i n g as f a r a s M i l l Creek, and
c r o s s i n g t h e c r e e k on f o o t o n t o h i s l a n d . H e also cleared
b r u s h a l o n g t h e roadway w i t h a chainsaw t o keep i t open.
I n 1971 J a c k s o n s c o n s t r u c t e d a " j a c k f e n c e " a c r o s s t h e
r o a d a b o u t midway a c r o s s t h e i r t r a c t . Garrett did not cut
t h r o u g h t h i s f e n c e , b u t parked h i s v e h i c l e by i t and p r o -
ceeded on f o o t o n t o h i s l a n d . I n 1976 t h e J a c k s o n s w i r e d
s h u t t h e g a t e which G a r r e t t had used s i n c e 1958. Garrett
c l i p p e d t h e w i r e s and removed p o l e s which J a c k s o n s had
p l a c e d o v e r it. The J a c k s o n s t h e n c h a i n e d and padlocked t h e
g a t e , p r e v e n t i n g G a r r e t t from e n t e r i n g , and s e n t a l e t t e r t o
G a r r e t t a c c u s i n g him o f b e i n g a t r e s p a s s e r . j hereafter,
G a r r e t t brought t h i s a c t i o n . During t h e l a s t two y e a r s
b e f o r e t h e g a t e w a s c h a i n e d and l o c k e d , G a r r e t t had used t h e
r o u t e a c r o s s J a c k s o n s ' l a n d some twenty t o t h i r t y t i m e s p e r
year.
I t i s c l e a r from t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t o t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t t h a t p l a i n t i f f G a r r e t t and h i s p r e d e c e s s o r s i n i n t e r e s t
have used d e f e n d a n t J a c k s o n s ' l a n d f o r many y e a r s a s a means
of a c c e s s t o t h e s l a u g h t e r h o u s e t r a c t . However, b e c a u s e
G a r r e t t changed t h e r o u t e i n 1958, whatever c l a i m h e now h a s
t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement must be shown t o have a c c r u e d
s i n c e t h a t d a t e and w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e new r o u t e .
To e s t a b l i s h a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement, t h e owner of t h e
p u r p o r t e d dominant tenement must e s t a b l i s h open, n o t o r i o u s ,
e x c l u s i v e , a d v e r s e , c o n t i n u o u s , and unmolested u s e of t h e
s e r v i e n t tenement f o r t h e f u l l s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d of f i v e
y e a r s r e q u i r e d t o a c q u i r e t i t l e by a d v e r s e p o s s e s s i o n . The
c l a i m a n t , however, i s e n t i t l e d t o r e l y upon a presumption
t h a t h i s u s e w a s a d v e r s e t o t h e s e r v i e n t o w n e r ' s t i t l e i f he
d e m o n s t r a t e s by h i s e v i d e n c e t h e o t h e r e l e m e n t s of h i s
claim. Luoma v. Donohoe ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont . I 588 P.2d
523, 525, 35 S t - R e p . 1971, 1973-74; S t a u d i n g e r v. DeVries
(1978) Mont. , 581 P.2d 1, 2, 35 St.Rep. 861, 863;
Mountain V i e w Cemetery v. Granger ( 1 9 7 8 ) , - Mont. I
574 P.2d 254, 257, 35 S t - R e p . 76, 79.
Thus, when t h e dominant owner makes t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y
showing of open, n o t o r i o u s , c o n t i n u o u s , and unmolested u s e
f o r t h e s t a t u t o r y p e r i o d , t h e burden f a l l s upon t h e owner o f
t h e s e r v i e n t tenement t o show t h a t t h e u s e was n o t a d v e r s e ,
b u t merely p e r m i s s i v e . Luoma, 588 P.2d a t 525, 35 St.Rep.
a t 1974; Mountain V i e w Cemetery, 574 P.2d a t 254, 35 St.Rep.
a t 7 9 ; OtConnor v . B r o d i e ( 1 9 6 9 ) r 1 5 3 Mont. 129, 137, 454
P.2d 920, 925. The J a c k s o n s a r g u e t h a t G a r r e t t ' s a c t o f
c u t t i n g t h e f e n c e w i r e s i n 1958 was n o t h o s t i l e o r a d v e r s e
b e c a u s e G a r r e t t r e w i r e d t h e f e n c e a f t e r he had gone t h r o u g h
it. However, G a r r e t t ' s a c t i o n i s r e a d i l y e x p l a i n e d by t h e
p r e s e n c e o f l i v e s t o c k on t h e f r o n t a g e t r a c t a t t h e t i m e .
H i s c o n c e r n f o r Marsh's s h e e p i s i n no way i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h
h i s c l a i m of right-of-way. The D i s t r i c t C o u r t found s p e c i -
f i c a l l y t h a t a f t e r Marsh i n s t a l l e d t h e d r o p w i r e g a t e G a r r e t t
would c l o s e t h e g a t e behind him i f l i v e s t o c k w e r e p r e s e n t ,
and l e a v e i t open i f t h e r e were none. I n a t l e a s t one o t h e r
i n s t a n c e , t h i s Court has d e s c r i b e d g a t e - c u t t i n g as a " d i s -
t i n c t and p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n o f a h o s t i l e r i g h t t o t h e
r i g h t s o f t h e owner . . ." T a y l o r v. P e t r a n e k ( 1 9 7 7 ) , -
Mont. , 568 P.2d 1 2 0 , 123, 34 St.Rep. 905, 910. In this
c a s e , where G a r r e t t c u t t h e f e n c e w i t h o u t s e e k i n g permis-
s i o n , and o n l y l a t e r informed t h e s e r v i e n t owner o f h i s a c t ,
t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t was w e l l j u s t i f i e d i n c o n c l u d i n g t h a t
G a r r e t t ' s u s e was a d v e r s e and h o s t i l e t o M a r s h ' s t i t l e .
The J a c k s o n s ' second a t t e m p t t o overcome t h e presump-
t i o n t h a t G a r r e t t ' s u s e was a d v e r s e i s t h e i r a s s e r t i o n t h a t
t h e p r e s e n c e of a g a t e t h r o u g h which G a r r e t t c o u l d l a t e r
p a s s i s s t r o n g evidence of permissive use. However, t h i s
Court has r u l e d t h a t t h e presence of a g a t e alone " w i l l n o t
d e f e a t a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement." Hayden v . Snowden ( 1 9 7 8 ) ,
Mont. , 576 P.2d 1115, 1118, 35 St.Rep. 367, 371.
A s was s a i d i n Kostbade v . M e t i e r ( 1 9 6 7 ) , 150 Mont. 139,
145, 432 P.2d 382, 386, " [ t l h e e v i d e n c e of t h i s o n e g a t e ,
admittedly b u i l t n o t t o s t o p people b u t c a t t l e , i s n o t
enough s t a n d i n g a l o n e t o r e b u t t h e p r e s u m p t i o n [ t h a t t h e u s e
was a d v e r s e ] ."
In the present matter, Marsh constructed a very simple
gate at the point where Garrett cut through the fence, for
the apparent purpose of providing a convenient method of
holding his sheep in after Garrett passed through. Thus,
the District Court's judgment that Garrett's use of the
roadway from 1958 to 1971 was adverse to Marsh's title is
supported by substantial credible evidence and by the pre-
sumption of adversity. There is no clear preponderance of
the evidence against the District Court's conclusion.
The Jacksons testified at trial that they were unaware
of any claim to an easement across their property until some
time after they purchased the land, and that even then,
Garrett's use was not adverse. However, assuming that the
District Court correctly concluded that Garrett's claim
fully ripened from 1958 to 1971, it is not necessary for
Garrett to again establish his claim after the transfer of
the servient tenement. In O'Connor v. Brodie, supra, 153
Mont. at 139, 454 P.2d at 926, this Court held that once the
owners of a water line easement had acquired their prescrip-
tive title, the servient owner's knowledge or lack of knowledge
of the claim was immaterial:
"But whether the defendants had actual knowledge
of the underground water line is immaterial for
the reason that plaintiffs had acquired prescrip-
tive title prior to the time defendants acquired
their property. Prescriptive title once estab-
lised is not divested by the subsequent transfer
of the servient estate. Ferguson v. Standley,
89 Mont. 489, 498, 300 P. 2d 245, [249]."
See also Mountain View Cemetery v. Granger, supra, 574 P.2d
at 258, 35 St-Rep. at 81.
Garrett's use of the existing roadway from 1958 is
sufficient to create a presumption of adverse use. The
Jacksons failed to overcome that presumption, and the
D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s judgment t h a t G a r r e t t h a s p r e s c r i p t i v e l y
a c q u i r e d a n e a s e m e n t a c r o s s t h e l a n d i s s u p p o r t e d by s u f f i -
c i e n t , s u b s t a n t i a l c r e d i b l e evidence.
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 .
W e concur:
f Justice
Justices