NO. 81-366
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
1982
CHARLES and KAY LINDLEY, AND
DARYL AND HELEN HOLMES,
Plaintiffs and Respondents,
KURTIS add SHIRLEY MAGGERT, AND
ELWOOD and DEBBIE KLEEMAN, et al.,
Defendants and Appellants.
Appeal from: District Court of the Thirteenth Judicial District,
In and for the County of Yellowstone, The Honorable
Diane G. Barz, Judge presiding.
Counsel of Record:
For Appellants:
Peterson Law Offices, Billings, Montana
For Respondents:
Keefer, Roybal, Hanson, Stacey & Jarussi,
Billings, Montana
Submitted on Briefs: March 5, 1982
Decided :
:,!.-.-i !. ); \" .-A
Filed :
M r . C h i e f J u s t i c e F r a n k I . Haswell d e l i v e r e d t h e O p i n i o n of t h e
Court.
P l a i n t i f f s b r o u g h t an a c t i o n i n t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e County
D i s t r i c t C o u r t s e e k i n g t o have t h e d e f e n d a n t s e n j o i n e d from
i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e use of a roadway e a s e m e n t . The D i s t r i c t
C o u r t g r a n t e d judgment to p l a i n t i f f s and o r d e r e d d e f e n d a n t s t o
remove a f e n c e and o t h e r o b s t r u c t i o n s which h i n d e r e d use of t h e
easement. Defendants appeal.
The e a s e m e n t i n v o l v e d i n t h i s d i s p u t e is l o c a t e d on l a n d
p u r c h a s e d by t h e d e f e n d a n t s from Sam Shimamoto. In t h e warranty
d e e d c o n v e y i n g t h e l a n d t o Shimamoto a roadway e a s e m e n t was
e x p r e s s l y r e s e r v e d by t h e g r a n t o r , S t e p h e n Pinnow. I n March 1980
Pinnow conveyed t h e e a s e m e n t to v a r i o u s l a n d o w n e r s , i n c l u d i n g
p l a i n t i f f s , who owned p r o p e r t y i n a t r a c t of l a n d o r i g i n a l l y
owned by P i n n o w ' s f a t h e r .
D i s a g r e e m e n t s o v e r u s e of t h e e a s e m e n t f o l l o w e d . On May
9 , 1980, p l a n t i f f s f i l e d a c o m p l a i n t s e e k i n g a permanent i n j u n c -
tion a g a i n s t t h e d e f e n d a n t s o r d e r i n g them to r e f r a i n from
o b s t r u c t i n g use of t h e easement. D e f e n d a n t s , along w i t h one
additional party, then f i l e d a complaint a g a i n s t the p l a i n t i f f s
and t h e c a s e s were c o n s o l i d a t e d f o r t r i a l . The second a c t i o n was
s e t t l e d by s t i p u l a t i o n p r i o r to t r i a l , so t h e t r i a l i n v o l v e d
o n l y t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d i n t h e i n i t i a l c o m p l a i n t f i l e d by t h e
plaintiffs. Judgment was g r a n t e d t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s and t h i s
appeal follows.
The d e f e n d a n t s acknowledge t h a t t h e i r l a n d i s s u b j e c t to
t h e roadway e a s e m e n t . However, t h e y c o n t e n d t h a t t h e D i s t r i c t
C o u r t e r r e d i n n o t d e t e r m i n i n g w h e t h e r p l a i n t i f f s ' u s e of t h e
e a s e m e n t would b u r d e n t h e i r l a n d t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n con-
t e m p l a t e d when t h e e a s e m e n t was c r e a t e d .
The e a s e m e n t r e s e r v e d by Pinnow was an e a s e m e n t i n g r o s s
n o t a t t a c h e d to l a n d . T h i s t y p e of e a s e m e n t is a u t h o r i z e d by
s e c t i o n 70-17-102, MCA:
"The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s or s e r v i t u d e s upon
l a n d may be g r a n t e d and h e l d t h o u g h n o t a t t a c h e d
t o land:
" ( 5 ) t h e right-of-way . . ."
Under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s of t h i s case w e d e t e r m i n e t h a t t h e
e a s e m e n t r e s e r v e d by Pinnow was b o t h a l i e n a b l e and a p p o r t i o n a b l e .
W h e t h e r o r n o t s u c h a n e a s e m e n t may be a l i e n a t e d and a p p o r t i o n e d
d e p e n d s upon t h e manner and t h e terms o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e
easement. S e e R e s t a t e m e n t ( S e c o n d ) o f t h e Law o f P r o p e r t y 5 5 492
a n d 493 ( 1 9 4 4 ) .
The w a r r a n t y d e e d c o n t a i n e d t h i s l a n g u a g e : "Reserving an
e a s e m e n t o v e r t h e E a s t 1 5 f e e t o f s a i d T r a c t f o r roadway
purposes." T h e r e is no l a n g u a g e i n t h e w a r r a n t y deed l i m i t i n g
t h e g r a n t o r ' s r i g h t t o f r e e l y a l i e n a t e and a p p o r t i o n t h e
easement. D e f e n d a n t s were aware o f t h e e a s e m e n t a t t h e t i m e
t h e y p u r c h a s e d t h e i r l a n d ; t h e y had no r i g h t to b e l i e v e t h a t
t h e e a s e m e n t would n o t be u s e d . The owner o f a r e s e r v e d e a s e m e n t
may u s e it t o t h e f u l l e x t e n t o f t h e r i g h t r e t a i n e d . C i t y of
M i s s o u l a v. Mix ( 1 9 5 0 ) , 1 2 3 Mont. 3 6 5 , 214 P.2d 212.
Defendants are a r g u i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s should not
b e allowed to use t h e easement u n t i l t h e D i s t r i c t Court d e t e r -
mines whether use of t h e easement by t h e p l a i n t i f f s w i l l
i n c r e a s e t h e b u r d e n o n t h e d e f e n d a n t s t l a n d beyond t h a t con-
t e m p l a t e d when t h e e a s e m e n t was e s t a b l i s h e d . I t is t r u e t h a t no
u s e may b e made o f t h e r i g h t - o f - w a y d i f f e r e n t from t h e u s e
e s t a b l i s h e d a t t h e t i m e o f t h e c r e a t i o n o f t h e e a s e m e n t s o as to
b u r d e n t h e s e r v i e n t e s t a t e t o a g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n w a s con-
t e m p l a t e d a t t h e t i m e t h e e a s e m e n t was c r e a t e d . T i t e c a v. S t a t e
by and t h r o u g h D e p t . o f F i s h ( 1 9 8 1 ) , Mont. , 6 3 4 P.2d
1 1 5 6 , 38 S t . R e p . 1 5 3 3 . The p r o b l e m w i t h d e f e n d a n t s t a r g u m e n t i s
t h a t t h e e a s e m e n t h a s t h u s f a r n o t b e e n used and t h e r e is no e v i -
d e n c e o f an i n c r e a s e d b u r d e n . This Court cannot d e c l a r e t h a t t h e
p r o p o s e d u s e w i l l be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s e r v e d e a s e m e n t o n
t h e b a s i s o f s p e c u l a t i o n as to p o s s i b l e f u t u r e u s e s . Titeca,
supra.
Af f i r m e d .
Chief J u s t i c e