Stout v. Reiter

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Stout v. Reiter. Read the opinion of the Court — 182 Mont. 171 →

Montana Supreme Court·Decided May 30, 1979·No. 14540·Published

Opinion

No. 14540

I N THE SUPREME C W O THE STATE O IJDJWANA O F F

EmmFa G. m r and u B NT L. O IA mur, P l a i n t i f f s and Respondents,

HEXMAN R E m and DOREESJ 0. R E m ,

Defendants and Appellants.

Appeal £ran: D i s t r i c t Court of the Thirteenth Judicial D i s t r i c t , Honorable Iiobert Wilson, Judge presiding.

Counsel of Record:

For Appellants:

muat and Martinson, Billings, Wntana William G. Wt argued, Billings, bbntana

For Respondents:

Moulton, Bellingham, mngo and Mather, Billings, IWntana R. H. Bellingham argued, Billings, IWntana Wrruw, Sedivy and Olsen, Bozeman, mntana Jams H. IWrrm argued, Bozeman, bbntana

Submitted: March 20, 1979

Decided: MAY 3 0 1979 Mr. J u s t i c e 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 O p i n i o n o f t h e Court.

P l a i n t i f f s , t h e S t o u t s , brought t h i s a c t i o n i n t h e D i s t r i c t Court of t h e Thirteenth J u d i c i a l ~ i s t r i c t , Yellow- s t o n e County, t o e n j o i n d e f e n d a n t s , t h e R e i t e r s , from u s i n g

c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s and from e n t e r i n g upon p l a i n -

t i f f s ' p r o p e r t y f o r t h e purpose of u s i n g t h e d i t c h e s .

D e f e n d a n t s c o u n t e r c l a i m e d s e e k i n g t o e n j o i n p l a i n t i f f s from

i n t e r f e r i n g with defendants' r i g h t t o use t h e ditches. The

case, which was t r i e d b e f o r e t h e Honorable R o b e r t H . Wilson

s i t t i n g without a jury, resulted i n an order perpetually

e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s from u s i n g t h e d i s p u t e d i r r i g a t i o n

ditches. D e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l from t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r .

The c a s e a r o s e b e c a u s e o f a d i s a g r e e m e n t o v e r t h e

meaning o f t h e l a n g u a g e u s e d i n a w a r r a n t y d e e d t o r e s e r v e

a n e a s e m e n t f o r d e f e n d a n t s when t h e y s o l d a p a r c e l o f l a n d

t o p l a i n t i f f s ' predecessors. The d i s p u t e d l a n g u a g e r e a d s :

". . . r e s e r v i n g a n easement 8 f e e t i n width f o r t h e i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h , a s now l o c a t e d , r u n n i n g from t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r on t h e W e s t t o t h e E a s t l i n e of said t r a c t f o r the p u r p o s e o f i r r i g a t i n g p r o p e r t y owned by t h e p a r t i e s of t h e f i r s t p a r t l y i n g t o t h e North and E a s t of s a i d t r a c t . . ." I n 1965 t h e l a n d p r e s e n t l y owned by p l a i n t i f f s and

d e f e n d a n t s was e n t i r e l y owned by L e l a n d McMorris. A t that

t i m e , William Neibauer, a r e a l t o r , e f f e c t e d a n agreement

whereby d e f e n d a n t s p u r c h a s e d t h e e n t i r e t r a c t from McMorris

and simultaneously s o l d a f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l , s u b j e c t t o

t h e r e s e r v a t i o n o f c e r t a i n e a s e m e n t s , t o Donald and G r a c e

Underwood by a c o n t r a c t f o r d e e d . The f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l ,

now d e s c r i b e d a s T r a c t 1, C e r t i f i c a t e o f S u r v e y # 9 9 1 , i s

l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e Y e l l o w s t o n e R i v e r a n d c o n t a i n s a number o f

i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h e s which h a v e been u s e d s i n c e 1965 t o i r -

r i g a t e defendants' adjoining property. The pump shown i n t h i s diagram of t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l i s

l o c a t e d i n a c h a n n e l of t h e r i v e r and pumps w a t e r i n t o t h e

e n t i r e d i t c h system. A t t h e t i m e defendants sold t h e f i f t e e n a c r e t r a c t t o

t h e Underwoods, t h e r e was a d i t c h r u n n i n g d i r e c t l y from t h e

pump t o t h e e a s t e r n boundary of t h e t r a c t . Shortly a f t e r

t h e Underwoods and d e f e n d a n t s completed t h e i r t r a n s a c t i o n ,

t h i s d i t c h was plowed under and a new d i t c h w a s dug t o t h e

south. I t now forms t h e s o u t h e r n p o r t i o n of D i t c h No. 6.

I n e s s e n c e , d e f e n d a n t s p r e s e n t two i s s u e s f o r review:

1. Whether 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 s u p p o r t

t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t ' s o r d e r e n j o i n i n g d e f e n d a n t s from u s i n g

a c e r t a i n i r r i g a t i o n d i t c h with connecting l a t e r a l s , ease-

ments f o r which a r e c l a i m e d by d e f e n d a n t s t o have been r e -

s e r v e d i n them i n a c o n t r a c t f o r deed and w a r r a n t y d e e d .

2 . Whether t h e D i s t r i c t C o u r t had a u t h o r i t y t o g r a n t

an i n j u n c t i o n i n a case of disputed t i t l e o r r i g h t before

d e t e r m i n a t i o n of t h e t i t l e o r r i g h t i n a n a c t i o n a t law.

Counsel f o r t h e Yellowstone County Farm Bureau and t h e

Montana Farm Bureau F e d e r a t i o n a p p e a r e d on a p p e a l a s amicus

c u r i a e a r g u i n g t h a t t h e primary i s s u e on a p p e a l s h o u l d be

whether d e f e n d a n t s own t h e d i t c h r i g h t s a s t h e y e x i s t e d a t

t h e t i m e of t h e i r f i f t e e n a c r e t r a n s a c t i o n w i t h p l a i n t i f f s '

predecessor.

A d d r e s s i n g t h i s l a t t e r argument f i r s t , w e n o t e t h a t t h e

argument assumes t h a t p r i o r t o 1965 t h e d i t c h system c o n s t i -

t u t e d a s e r v i t u d e upon t h e f i f t e e n a c r e p a r c e l and a n appur-

t e n a n c e t o t h e l a n d now owned by d e f e n d a n t s . Along t h e s e

l i n e s , s e c t i o n 67-601, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-101

MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t :

"The f o l l o w i n g l a n d b u r d e n s , o r s e r v i t u d e s upon l a n d , may b e a t t a c h e d t o o t h e r l a n d a s i n c i d e n t s o r a p p u r t e n a n c e s , and a r e t h e n c a l l e d easements:

" (11) The r i g h t of h a v i n g w a t e r f l o w w i t h - o u t d i m i n u t i o n o r d i s t u r b a n c e of any k i n d . " However, s e c t i o n 67-611, R.C.M. 1947, now s e c t i o n 70-17-111

MCA, provides i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t t h a t :

"A s e r v i t u d e i s e x t i n g u i s h e d :

"1. By t h e v e s t i n g of t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i - t u d e and t h e r i g h t t o t h e s e r v i e n t tenement i n t h e same p e r s o n ; "

I t i s a p p a r e n t , t h e n , t h a t t h e d i t c h system c o u l d n o t have

been a n a p p u r t e n a n c e t o d e f e n d a n t s ' l a n d p r i o r t o 1965 be-

c a u s e t h e dominant and s e r v i e n t tenements w e r e p a r t of t h e

same p a r c e l . The easement i n t h i s c a s e was c r e a t e d a t t h e

t i m e t h e p a r c e l s w e r e s e p a r a t e d , and w e must look t o t h e

l a n g u a g e o f t h e i n s t r u m e n t which c r e a t e d t h e easement t o

d e t e r m i n e what i t i n c l u d e s .

The complete r e s e r v a t i o n found i n t h e w a r r a n t y deed

reads a s follows:

". . .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI