Peters v. Johnson
This text of Peters v. Johnson (Peters v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Montana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
NO. 82-234
I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA
BEVERLY J . PETERS,
Plaintiff and A p p e l l a n t ,
VS.
EDWARD G . JOHNSON a n d HELEN L. JOHNSON, H u s b a n d a n d Wif e l
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of the Sixth J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , I n and f o r t h e County o f Park Honorable Jack Shanstrom, Judge p r e s i d i n g .
Counsel of Record:
For Appellant:
Jon A. Oldenburg, Lewistown, Montana
For Respondents:
Kent Douglas, Livingston, Montana
Submitted: February 3, 1983
Decided: March 1 0 , 1 9 8 3
Filed: yAgi.)!g$3 Mr. Justice J o h n Conway H a r r i s o n d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion of the Court.
Peters appeals from the judgment of the District Court holding Peters is n o t e n t i t l e d to an easement a c r o s s J o h n s o n s '
property. P e t e r s owns l a n d i n P a r k County, near Livingston, Montana.
I n t h e summer o f 1 9 7 9 , P e t e r s b e g a n n e g o t i a t i n g w i t h t h e J o h n s o n s
f o r t h e s a l e o f t h e l a n d c o n s i s t i n g o f 26.040 acres. Initially, E. L. J o h n s o n was to purchase a p a r c e l of about twenty acres w h i l e h i s f a t h e r E . G . J o h n s o n was to p u r c h a s e a p a r c e l o f a b o u t
s i x acres. Through t h e s i x - a c r e p a r c e l i n t o t h e twenty-acre par- cel r u n s a s t r i p of l a n d which s e r v e d as a r o a d p r i o r t o 1 9 2 2 . W i t n e s s e s t e s t i f i e d t h e r o a d was t h e main l i n k b e t w e e n L i v i n g s t o n
a n d W i l s a l l u n t i l a new highway was b u i l t i n 1 9 2 2 . A l l parties
a g r e e t h e o u t l i n e of t h e o l d road i s s t i l l v i s i b l e across t h e
l a n d b u t t h a t i t h a s n o t b e e n used a s a r o a d f o r a l o n g p e r i o d o f
t i m e p r i o r to t h i s a c t i o n . After negotiations with E. L. Johnson broke down, E. G.
Johnson agreed to purchase the six-acre t r a c t from P e t e r s . In
S e p t e m b e r 1 9 7 9 , E. G. J o h n s o n p a i d P e t e r s $ 4 0 0 i n e a r n e s t money.
When E . L. and E . G. J o h n s o n were p l a n n i n g t o p u r c h a s e t h e t w o p a r c e l s of l a n d r P e t e r s was n o t c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e n e c e s s i t y o f
a n easement through the six-acre plot to t h e twenty-acre plot. A f t e r E. L. Johnson decided not to p u r c h a s e the twenty acresr P e t e r s added a 30-foot r o a d e a s e m e n t to t h e o r i g i n a l c l o t h p r i n t
plat of the property and filed the plat with the clerk and recorder's off i c e . The e a s e m e n t is w h e r e t h e o l d W i l s a l l r o a d
crossed the six-acre parcel. T h e r e is no o t h e r p r e s e n t access t o t h e twenty-acre tract. On O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 r t h e P e t e r s and t h e J o h n s o n s m e t i n t h e o f f i c e o f P e t e r s ' a t t o r n e y and e x e c u t e d a n a g r e e m e n t to s e l l and
purchase. The d e s c r i p t i o n of r e a l p r o p e r t y c o n t a i n e d t h e p h r a s e :
"Subject to an existing easement thirty feet in width." Johnsonst testified they signed the agreement with the understanding t h a t i f t h e s t r i p of l a n d had n o t a c t u a l l y b e e n a
c o u n t y r o a d , t h e r e would be no " e x i s t i n g e a s e m e n t " w h i c h t h e p r o - p e r t y would be " s u b j e c t t o . " P e t e r s and t h e i r a t t o r n e y t e s t i f i e d t h e y had n o t r e a c h e d s u c h a n a g r e e m e n t w i t h t h e J o h n s o n s p r i o r to
signing the contract. Evidence introduced a t the District Court
hearing showed t h e s t r i p of l a n d was n o t r e c o r d e d as a county r o a d n o r was a n e a s e m e n t r e c o r d e d p r i o r to t h i s a c t i o n .
On April 6, 1981, Peters filed a complaint against the J o h n s o n s s e e k i n g , among o t h e r t h i n g s , s p e c i f i c p e r f o r m a n c e of t h e
agreement to sell and purchase which contained the easement
clause. On May 1 4 , 1 9 8 2 , t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t e n t e r e d i t s f i n d i n g s
of f a c t and c o n c l u s i o n s o f l a w and h e l d J o h n s o n s are e n t i t l e d to
a deed to t h e p r o p e r t y f r e e of any e a s e m e n t s . Peters appeals. The s u b s t a n c e o f t h e i s s u e s r a i s e d o n a p p e a l is w h e t h e r t h e District Court e r r e d in ruling that there was no easement in e x i s t a n c e o n O c t o b e r 1 7 , 1 9 8 0 , and t h a t J o h n s o n s a r e e n t i t l e d t o
a deed to the property free of any such purported easement. P e t e r s claims s h e is e n t i t l e d t o a n i m p l i e d r e s e r v a t i o n of easement through the six-acre tract. She r e l i e s upon section
70-20-308, MCA:
"A t r a n s f e r o f r e a l p r o p e r t y p a s s e s a l l ease- m e n t s a t t a c h e d t h e r e t o and c r e a t e s i n f a v o r t h e r e o f an e a s e m e n t to use o t h e r real p r o p e r t y o f t h e p e r s o n whose e s t a t e is t r a n s f e r r e d i n t h e same manner and t o t h e same e x t e n t as s u c h p r o p e r t y was o b v i o u s l y and p e r m a n e n t l y u s e d by t h e p e r s o n whose e s t a t e i s t r a n s f e r r e d f o r t h e b e n e f i t t h e r e o f a t t h e same t i m e when t h e t r a n s f e r w a s a g r e e d upon or c o m p l e t e d ." J o h n s o n s c l a i m P e t e r s is n o t e n t i t l e d to a n e a s e m e n t b e c a u s e there was no e a s e m e n t e x i s t i n g at the time they executed the a g r e e m e n t t o s e l l and p u r c h a s e . T h i s Court first recognized an i m p l i e d r e s e r v a t i o n of e a s e m e n t i n T h i r s t e d v. C o u n t r y C l u b Tower C o r p o r a t i o n ( 1 9 6 5 ) , 1 4 6 Mont. 8 7 , 4 0 5 P.2d 432. Since t h a t t i m e
t h e d o c t r i n e h a s become w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d i n Montana. One t y p e of
i m p l i e d e a s e m e n t is a "way o f n e c e s s i t y . " T h i s Court discussed
way o f n e c e s s i t y i n Schmid v . McDowell ( 1 9 8 2 ) , Mont . I " G e n e r a l l y a way o f n e c e s s i t y is d e f i n e d a s follows: ' [ w l h e r e a n owner of l a n d c o n v e y s a p a r c e l t h e r e o f w h i c h h a s no o u t l e t t o a h i g h - way e x c e p t o v e r t h e r e m a i n i n g l a n d s o f t h e g r a n t o r or o v e r t h e l a n d o f s t r a n g e r s , a way of n e c e s s i t y e x i s t s over t h e remaining l a n d s of the grantor. F i n n v. W i l l i a m s ( 1 9 4 1 ) , 3 7 6 I l l . 9 5 , 3 3 N.E.2d 226, 2 2 8 ; see a l s o , 25 Am.Jur.2d E a s e m e n t s , s e c t i o n 34 e t s e q . ; 3 P o w e l l o n Real P r o p e r t y ( 1 9 8 1 ) , s e c t i o n 4 1 0 . - . S i m i l a r l y , a way o f n e c e s s - -- s --- when ity i found - t h e o w n e r - l a n d s r e t a i n s --h e - n e r p o r t i o n of t in- c o n v e y i n g t o a n o t h e r - b a l a n c e , across w h i c h the -- . h e m-t - - - x i t - - -- - us g T for e - a n d access. - Powell, s u p r a , s e c t i o n 410. The e a s e m e n t i t s e l f a r i - ses a t t h e t i m e of c o n v e y a n c e , i . e . , when t h e n e c e s s i t y to h a v e access to t h e o u t s i d e w o r l d a r i s e s . U n l i k e o t h e r i m p l i e d e a s e m e n t s , it is - .
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Peters v. Johnson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peters-v-johnson-mont-1983.