INGELS v MICKALSON

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 13110 I N THE SUPREME COURT O THE STATE OF' MONTANA F DONALD TNGELS and RONI'I'A XNGELS , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , C U U D l k ANN MICKALSON and TERRANCE LEE MICKALSON, Defendants and Respondents. A p p e a l from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e F i r s t J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable Gordon R. B e n n e t t , Judge p r e s i d i n g . Counsel o f Record : For A p p e l l a n t s : S m a l l , Cummins and Hatch, Helena, Montana C a r l Hatch a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Yor Respondents : K e l l e r , Reynolds and Drake, Helena, Montana H e r b e r t George a r g u e d , Helena, Montana Submitted: Filed: -4j~y. 516 March 5 , 1976 Hon. Robert S. K e l l e r , D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n , d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e C o u r t : P l a i n t i f f s Donald and B o n i t a I n g e l s b r o u g h t s u i t a g a i n s t d e f e n d a n t s C l a u d i a Ann and T e r r a n c e Lee Mickalson, t o e s t a b l i s h a n easement a c r o s s t h e r e a r p o r t i o n o f a l o t i n t h e C i t y o f Helena, which ~ i c k a l s o n sa r e p u r c h a s i n g . The c l a i m i s p r e d i c a t e d upon a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement, o r i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , a n easement by i m p l i c a t i o n . The p r o p e r t i e s i n v o l v e d a r e l o t s 20 and 21 o f Block 395, o f Helena T o w n s i t e , l o c a t e d a d j a c e n t t o e a c h o t h e r on West Lawrence S t r e e t i n t h e C i t y o f Helena; t h e I n g e l s a r e t h e owners of l o t 20, t h e l o t t o t h e e a s t , and ~ i c k a l s o n sa r e buying l o t 21 on a c o n t r a c t f o r deed. P r i o r t o A p r i l 1968, l o t s 20 and 21 belonged t o t h e same owner, and t h e y were s o l d a t t h e same t i m e , w i t h l o t 20 b e i n g conveyed t o I n g e l s . By mesne conveyances, ~ i c k a l s o n sa c q u i r e d , and e n t e r e d i n t o p o s s e s s i o n o f , l o t 2 1 i n F e b r u a r y 1973, ( f o u r y e a r s and t e n months a f t e r Ingels acquired t h e i r possession). The l o t s a r e b o r d e r e d on t h e n o r t h by West Lawrence S t r e e t , and on t h e s o u t h by a n a l l e y ; ~ n g e l s ' l o t i s 42 f e e t wide and 100 f e e t d e e p , and ~ i c k a l s o n s ' l o t a p p e a r s t o b e o f t h e same d i m e n s i o n s , a l t h o u g h n o t m a t e r i a l here. On t h e s o u t h e a s t c o r n e r o f ~ n g e l s ' l o t i s a g a r a g e 23 f e e t l o n g , w i t h t h e b a c k o f t h e g a r a g e on t h e e a s t edge o f t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e , and t h e s o u t h s i d e o f t h e g a r a g e i s immediately adjacent t o the alley. The g a r a g e d o o r f r o n t s t o t h e w e s t . O n t h e southwest c o r n e r o f M i c k a l s o n s ' l o t i s a s h e d , and p r i o r t o A p r i l 1974, t h e r e was n o t h i n g between t h e g a r a g e on I n g e l s ' l o t and t h e shed on ~ i c k a l s o n s ' l o t . On o r a b o u t A p r i l 5 , 1974, Mickalsons e r e c t e d a f e n c e on t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e between t h e g a r a g e and t h e s h e d , t o c o n n e c t w i t h an e x i s t i n g f e n c e t h a t had a l r e a d y been e r e c t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e between t h e two l o t s . Lngels :ontend t h a t t h e y used heir s a r a g e o n l y by J r i v i n g a c r o s s t h e s o u t h e a s t e r n p o r t i o n o f ~ i c k a l s o n s 'l o t where t h e c l e a r s p a c e e x i s t e d between ~ i c k a l s o n s ' shed and t h e i r g a r a g e ; t h a t t h e y have been d o i n g t h i s e v e r s i n c e t h e y a c q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r t y i n A p r i l 1968, and t h a t t h e y had an zasement by p r e s c r i p t i o n . I n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , I n g e l s contend i h e y had a n easement by i m p l i c a i ~ i o n ; t h a t when t h e p r o p e r t y was s o l d t o them i n 1968 by t h e owner of b o t h l o t s , t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e g a r a g e makes i t obvious t h a t t h e o n l y way t o u s e t h e g a r a g e was t o come a c r o s s t h e c o r n e r of t h e a d j a c e n t l o t , and t h a t s i n c e t h e owner o f b o t h l o t s s o l d l o t 20 t o I n g e l s , t h e r e was an i m p l i e d easement t o u s e l o t 21 f o r a c c e s s . The e v i d e n c e o f u s e of ~ i c k a l s o n s ' p r o p e r t y by t h e LngeLs was i n d i s p u t e a t t h e t r i a l . Undisputed was t h e f a c t t h a t f o r a p e r i o d o f t i m e v a r y i n g from s i x weeks t o two and A h a l f months, n e a r t h e end of t h e f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d n e c e s s a r y ;u a c q u i r e a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t ( A p r i l 1968 t o A p r i l 1 9 7 3 ) , t h e Lngels d i d n o t u s e ~ i c k a l s o n s 'p r o p e r t y f o r t h e r e a s o n t h a t of t h e i r v e h i c l e s was parked i n f r o n t o f t h e i r g a r a g e i n a of) t i m e ;Late o f d i s r e p a i r , and was n o t r e p a i r e d f o r t h a t l e n g t d , b l o c k i n g JIie a n y u s e o f l n g e l s l p r o p e r t y by I n g e l s . A s f a t e would have i t , t h i s was d u r i n g t h e same p e r i o d o f t i m e t h a t a r e a l t o r showed t h e a d j o i n i n g l o t t o M i c k a l s o n s , and t h e y a c q u i r e d t h e i r p r o p e r t y , i.e., lngels t h e r e was c e r t a i n l y no n o t i c e t o anyone a t t h a t t i m e t h a t t h e were u s i n g ~ i c k a l s o n 's p r o p e r t y . I t was f u r t h e r u n d i s p u t e d t h a t t h e u s e o f t h e p r o p e r t y by t h e ( n g e l s was n o t h o s t i l e , n o r e x c l u s i v e . Mickalsons t e s t i f i e d t h a t chey n e v e r saw t h e I n g e l s u s e t h e p r o p e r t y a t any t i m e , b u t t a k i n g k g e l s ' testimony a t i t s b e s t , they got along e x c e p t i o n a l l y w e l l w i t h t h e v a r i o u s t e n a n t s o f l o t 21, and t h e u s e of t h e c l e a r s p a c e k c w e e n t h e shed and t h e g a r a g e was s h a r e d , i . e . , the tenants 7f l o t 21 would d r i v e a c r o s s a p o r t i o n o f l o t 20 t o g e t t o t h e s h e d , and t h e I n g e l s d r o v e a c r o s s a p o r t i o n 3.E l o t 2 1 !:u ger t o t h e garage. Thus, t h e u s e was n e i t h e r c o n t i n u o u s , n o r e x c l u s i v e , S c o t t v . Weinheimer, 140 Mont. 554, 374 P.2d 91. The ~ n g e l s ' u s a g e of t h e c l a i m e d r i g h t - o f - w a y was n o t a d v e r s e and h o s t i l e , a s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from p e r m i s s i v e , Ewan v. S t e n b e r g , 541 P.2d 6 0 , 32 St.Rep. Mon t . Y 864; ~ e n v. B r i d g e s , 123 Mont. 95, g The t r i a l judge s o found and 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 support h i s findings. T h e r e was no e v i d e n c e o f f e r e d i n s u p p o r t o f an easement by i m p l i c a t i o n , o t h e r t h a n t h a t when t h e I n g e l s a c q u i r e d t h e p r o p e r t y , t h e g a r a g e was t h e r e . The I n g e l s c i t e , i n t h e i r b r i e f , 25 Am J u r 2d Easements and L i c e n s e s , $28, a p o r t i o n of which i s quoted: "The b a s i s o f t h e g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e a s t o t h e i m p l i c a t i o n of an easement from a p r e - e x i s t i n g u s e i s t h e presumed o r p r o b a b l e i n t e n t i o n of t h e p a r t i e s t o t h e conveyance, a s d i s c l o s e d by a l l t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s s u r r o u n d i n g t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . A presumption f r e q u e n t l y invoked i s t h a t t h e p a r t i e s c o n t r a c t e d w i t h a view t o t h e c o n d i t i o n o f t h e p r o p e r t y a s i t a c t u a l l y was a t t h e t i m e o f t h e t r a n s a c t i o n . Whether a n easement a r i s e s by i m p l i c a t i o n , however, must depend upon such matters a s t h e extended c h a r a c t e r of t h e u s e r , t h e n a t u r e o f t h e property, t h e r e l a t i o n of t h e separated p a r t s t o e a c h , and t h e e x i s t i n g d e g r e e of n e c e s s i t y f o r 3 i v i n g s u c h c o n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e conveyance a s w i l l g i v e e f f e c t t o what may b e supposed t o have b e e n , c o n s i d e r i n g t h e manner of u s e , t h e r e a s o n a b l e intendment of t h e parties. II Here, n o t o n l y was t h e r e no such e v i d e n c e , b u t t h e t r i a l ,judge p e r s o n a l l y viewed t h e p r e m i s e s . 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 . T n . Robert S . K e l l e r D i s t r i c t Judge, s i t t i n g f o r Chief J u s t i c e James T. H a r r i s o n . W Concur: e Justices.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.