NO. 82-234

I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

1983

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 - . t o t - atime." ( ~ m p h a s i s --t h e r e f o r e w e l l -s e t t l e d - h a t - way o f n e c e s s i t y - d o e s - -r l s e p r l o r - t h a t - n o t a- p-

supplied. ) Here, J o h n s o n s claim t h e i r u n d e r s t a n d i n g a t t h e t i m e o f exe-

cuting t h e agreement w a s o n l y i f t h e r e was a n e x i s t i n g c o u n t y road would Peters be granted an easement. Unfortunately for

P e t e r s , t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t t h e v i s i b l e roadway had b e e n a r e c o r d e d

c o u n t y r o a d was i n e r r o r . However, as s t a t e d a b o v e , t h e way of necessity arose at the time of conveyance and whether there a c t u a l l y was a n e x i s t i n g e a s e m e n t is i r r e l e v a n t .

Judgment of t h e District Court is r e v e r s e d and remanded to

e n t e r judgment i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s o p i n i o n .

F7e c o n c u r :

RAWU Chief ~ u s t i 6 e