EWAN v STENBERG

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

No. 12892 I N THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF M N A A OTN \mIGHT LWAN and HAZEL EWAN, husband and w i f e , P l a i n t i f f s and A p p e l l a n t s , OLAV S. STENBERG, and GLADYS K. STEWBERG, husband and w i f e , LOUISE BEER, and t h e EQUITABLE LIFE ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES, D e f e n d a n t s and R e s p o n d e n t s . Appeal from: D i s t r i c t Court of t h e S i x t h J u d i c i a l D i s t r i c t , Honorable C h a r l e s Luedke, J u d g e p r e s i d i n g . Counsel of Record: For Appellants : Lee O v e r f e l t a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana F o r Respondents : Longan and Holmstrom, B i l l i n g s , Montana F r a n k l i n S . Longan a r g u e d , B i l l i n g s , Montana Submitted: Decided : Filed : Clerk A p r i l 11, 1975 Chief J u s t i c e James T. Harrison d e l i v e r e d t h e Opinion o f t h e Court. P l a i n t i f f s a p p e a l from a summary judgment e n t e r e d f o r d e f e n d a n t s i n t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t , Sweet Grass County. P l a i n t i f f s ' amended complaint a l l e g e d a r i g h t of way by p r e s c r i p t i o n o r a p u b l i c way a c r o s s S t e n b e r g ' s land o r , i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , t o condemn a way of necessity. f e n d a n t s f i l e d motions t o d i s m i s s and t o s t r i k e . A 1 1 de- Defendant Stenberg was o r d e r e d t o show c a u s e why i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f should ti n o t be g r a n t e d . The d i s t r i c t c o u r t t r e a t e d t h e motions a s b e i n g f o r summary judgment. Stenberg has f i l e d no answer. The t e s t i - mony which was b e f o r e t h e c o u r t was t h a t adduced a t t h e h e a r i n g on t h e motions and t h e o r d e r t o show cause. Prior t o that h e a r i n g t h e judge, i n company w i t h c o u n s e l , viewed t h e premises. Following t h e h e a r i n g , summary judgment of d i s m i s s a l was e n t e r e d f o r t h e defendants. P l a i n t i f f s appeal. The d i s t r i c t judge a t t h e time of making t h e o r d e r g r a n t i n g summary judgment f i l e d a memorandum and provided i t should c o n s t i t u t e t h e 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 of law, and we w i l l l i b e r a l l y q u o t e from i t , s i n c e t h e c o u r t p a i n s t a k i n g l y answered t h e c o n t e n t i o n s of p l a i n t i f f s . It reads: "Commencing i n 1945 t h e P l a i n t i f f s o p e r a t e d a c a t t l e and sheep ranch u t i l i z i n g two t r a c t s of nonjoining f e e land. One t r a c t , T r a c t A , i s l o c a t e d i n t h e v a l l e y of t h e Boulder River and t h e o t h e r , T r a c t B , i s l o c a t e d g e n e r a l l y on t o p of a h i l l which i s s t e e p l y sloped on t h e s i d e s . T r a c t A i s t h e home p l a c e and i s used f o r w i n t e r p a s t u r e w h i l e T r a c t B i s summer p a s t u r e and h a s sometimes been hayed i n p a r t . The h i l l on which T r a c t B i s l o c a t e d i s s i t u a t e d i n t h e i n t e r s t i c e s of a f o r k of t h e Boulder River s o t h a t t h i s h i l l i s bounded on one s i d e by t h e main Boulder River and t h e main Boulder road (Highway 2 9 8 ) , and on t h e o t h e r by t h e West Boulder River and West Boulder r o a d . Although T r a c t B l i e s between two r o a d s , i t a b u t s upon n e i t h e r of them, i t b e i n g hemmed i n on a l l s i d e s by o t h e r f e e land owners h i p s s o t h a t i n g r e s s and e g r e s s r e q u i r e t h e t r a v e r s i n g of l a n d s of o t h e r owners. 9~ 7 k * "From t h e beginning of p l a i n t i f f s ' o p e r a t i o n s of t h e s e l a n d s , a u s e exchange of 40 a c r e t r a c t s was i n e f f e c t w i t h one of t h e landowners a d j o i n i n g , b e i n g M. Work, a p r e d e c e s s o r i n t i t l e t o Defendants Stenr berg. By v i r t u e of t h i s u s e exchange, a 40 a c r e ex- t e n s i o n ( P a r c e l X) was tacked o n t o one end of T r a c t 9 , toward and almost r e a c h i n g t h e West Boulder r o a d , so t h a t T r a c t B'S i s o l a t i o n was narrowed t o w i t h i n a m a t t e r of y a r d s and f o r a l l p r a c t i c a l purposes made a c c e s s t o T r a c t B from t h e West Boulder road p o s s i b l e . However, t h e West Boulder s i d e i s t h e s i d e f a r t h e s t from l-'laintiffsl T r a c t A home p l a c e , s o t h a t a s occasion r e q u i r e d , t h e P l a i n t i f f s would t r a i l down t h e East s i d e 0 2 t h e h i l l t o T r a c t A , i n t h e p r o c e s s of which t h e y were c r o s s i n g a n o t h e r p a r t of t h e Work l a n d . The g e n e r a l p a t t e r n which developed i n p l a i n t i f f s ' o p e r a t i o n over t h e y e a r s was t o move onto T r a c t B i n t h e Spring by going around t o t h e West Boulder s i d e and e n t e r i n g through Parcel X. I n t h e l a t e Fall o r e a r l y Winter, t h e l i v e s t o c k would be brought down t h e E a s t s i d e of t h e h i l l , a c r o s s t h e Work l a n d , through a Work g a t e and on t o p l a i n t i f f s ' T r a c t A , t h i s b e i n g t h e s h o r t e s t and most direct route. An Because of t o p o g r a p h i c a l encumbrances t h e h i l l s i d e , t h e l i v e s t o c k g e n e r a l l y followed a s i n g u l a r a n t r s e s o t h a t a t r a i l developed. "In t h e e a r l y 1 9 5 0 ' s t h e Work l a n d was s o l d t o X r . Beer, who, i n a b o u t 1956, b u l l d o z e d a rough road on t h e E a s t s i d e which had t h e same g e n e r a l b e g i n n i n g and ending p o i n t s a s t h e o l d cow t r a i l b u t t r a v e r s e d a somewhat d i f f e r e n t r o u t e i n between i n a n e f f o r t t o make a ~rade and r o u t e which would make some v e h i c u l a r u s e possible. Except f o r an i n s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n where the r o a d edged o n t o P l a i n t i f f s ' l a n d , t h e r o a d was a l l on Beer p r o p e r t y . Plaintiffs did not participate i n making t h i s r o a d o r i n m a i n t a i n i n g i t , b u t a f t e r i t was b u i l t t h e y used i t i n normal c o u r s e o f t h e i r o p e r a t i o n s on T r a c t B f o r c h e c k i n g on t h e c a t t l e , moving equipment and l i v e s t o c k , e t c . " A t a l l t i m e s , t h e r e was a n o t h e r a c c e s s r o u t e a v a i l a b l e i n t o T r a c t B from t h e West Boulder s i d e , s t a r t i n g a t point 'z' and f o l l o w i n g up t h e Mason Coulee o v e r what i s now S c h i l l i n g p r o p e r t y t o t h e s i d e o f t h e b u i l d i n g s o f t h e Mason homestead which were s i t u a t e d on T r a c t B . P l a i n t i f f s , however, made o n l y o c c a s i o n a l u s e of t h i s r o u t e , i t o b v i o u s l y b e i n g l e s s c o n v e n i e n t than t h e o t h e r s . A l s o , P l a i n t i f f s have a t t i m e s used a r o u t e up Chokecherry S p r i n g s , which i s b u l l d o z e d b u t i s v e r y s t e e p and a l s o t r a v e r s e s Defendant s t e n b e r g ' s Land. "In 1966 t h e Defendant S t e n b e r g s became t h e owners of t h e Beer l a n d and t h e l a n d u s e exchange o f t h e two 4 0 ' s was c o n t i n u e d a s was t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' p a t t e r n a s t o i n Sometime i n l a t e 1971 o r a e a r l y 1972 and a s a consequence o f / J i s a g r e e m e n t o f some g r e s s and e g r e s s t o T r a c t B . s o r t , Stenberg advised P l a i n t i f f s t h a t t h e land use exchange would b e d i s c o n t i n u e d and t h a t P l a i n t i f f s were n o t t o u s e t h e E a s t s i d e r o u t e t o and from T r a c t B anymore b e c a u s e he d i d n ' t want them on h i s l a n d . Pursuant t o t h i s n o t i f i c a t i o n Stenberg b a r r i c a d e d t h e e n t r y of t h e r o u t e where i t e n t e r e d h i s land and each p a r t y r e fenced t h e i r 40 a c r e t r a c t i n t o t h e i r own u n i t s which e f f e c t e d a d i s c o n t i n u a n c e of t h e u s e exchange. In the F a l l of 1972 and a g a i n i n t h e F a l l of 1973, P l a i n t i f f s n e v e r t h e l e s s used t h e East s i d e r o u t e t o b r i n g their c a t t l e out of T r a c t B , going through s t e n b e r g ' s b a r r i cade t o do so. s he evidence shows t h a t o t h e r p e r s o n s , many of them being f r i e n d s of P l a i n t i f f s , a l s o used t h i s road f o r h u n t i n g o r s i g h t s e e i n g purposes from time t o time i n past years. "There i s a s h a r p c o n f l i c t between t h e p a r t i e s over whether t h e g a t e i n t o Defendant s t e n b e r g ' s l a n d t o t h e Beer road was o r was n o t e v e r locked o r p o s t e d . The P l a i n t i f f s a r e d e f i n i t e i n t h e i r b e l i e f t h a t i t never was, w h i l e w i t n e s s e s f o r t h e Defendants s t a t e t h e i r b e s t r e c o l l e c t i o n t o be t h a t l o c k s and s i g n s were used d u r i n g h u n t i n g season. 1 N s re spas sing' o Such l o c k s and s i g n s , however, were intended t o a p p l y t o t r a f f i c of h u n t e r s and n o t t o neighbors who would be welcome t o a key t o go through. " P l a i n t i f f s contend t h a t t h e y have a right-of-way by p r e s c r i p t i o n over t h e E a s t s i d e r o u t e because of c o n s i s t e n t usage of i t over t h e y e a r s and, because i t has been used by a number of o t h e r s , i t may i n f a c t be a p u b l i c r o a d , o r , i n any e v e n t , t h a t because of t h e t o t a l i s o l a t i o n of T r a c t B t h e E a s t s i d e r o u t e should be decreed t o P l a i n t i f f s a s a right-of-way easement founded upon n e c e s s i t y , 2 condemnation. 11 The b a s i c requirements t o t h e a c c r u a l of a r i g h t - of-way easement b y ^ p r e s c r i p t i o n a r e s o w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d b y Piontana c a s e a u t h o r i t y t h a t a review o f them i s un- necessary. (See White v. Kamps, 119 Iqont. 102 and ~ o t v. Weinheimer, 140 Mont. 554 a s examples.) t LS Suffice t o n o t e t h a t one requirement i s t h a t t h e u s a g e made a f t h e claimed r i g h t - o f - w a y be a d v e r s e and h o s t i l e , n o t permissive. The t o t a l i t y of t h e e v i d e n c e h e r e can s u p p o r t o n l y one c o n c l u s i o n , namely, t h a t from t h e b e g i n n i n g t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' u s a g e of t h e t r a i l and t h e l a t e r b u l l d o z e d road was a m a t t e r of n e i g h b o r l y c o o p e r a t i o n between friendly ranchers. Consequently, i t was a p e r m i s s i v e u s e and h a s remained s o u n t i l t h e p l a i n t i f f ' s d e f i a n c e of s t e n b e r g ' s b a r r i c a d e i n 1972, which i s n o t a s u f f i - c i e n t length of t i m e t o ripen i n t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e r i g h t . Lhe f a c t t h a t t h e u s e h a s been p e r m i s s i v e r a t h e r t h a n adverse i s f a t a l t o the claim of P l a i n t i f f s a s t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement. (Wilson v. C h e s t n u t , 3 1 St.Rep. 606) "The a s s e r t i o n t h a t t h e r o a d has become a p u b l i c o n e , e n t i t l i n g P l a i n t i f f s t o i t s usage a s members of t h e p u b l i c , a l s o i s n o t s u p p o r t e d by t h e f a c t s a p p e a r i n g . Occasional u s e by h u n t e r s , by s i g h t s e e i n g f r i e n d s and by n e i g h b o r s v i s i t i n g n e i g h b o r s f a l l s s h o r t of t h e e x t e n t dnd t y p e of usage n e c e s s a r y t o r e s u l t i n t h e a c c r u a l of a public r i g h t . If The remaining ground upon which P l a i n t i f f s ' c l a i m r e l i e f i s t h a t they a r e e n t i t l e d t o be decreed a r i g h t of-way by n e c e s s i t y over t h e r o u t e i n d i s p u t e . The c r u x o f t h i s c l a i m i s t h e q u e s t i o n of whether t h e r e q u i s i t e n e c e s s i t y does o r does n o t e x i s t . It i s not disputed t h a t ~ l a i n t i f f s 'T r a c t B i s e n t i r e l y surrounded by o t h e r uwnerships. R t t h e same t i m e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t t h e ~ ~ r i g i n a l h i s t o r i c a l access route, the so-called and a as on Coulee r o a d ' , always h a s b e e n , and i s now, It i s a l s o c l e a r a v a i l a b l e a s a way i n t o T r a c t B . t h a t i n t h e y e a r s of 1972 and 1973, P l a i n t i f f s had a way of g e t t i n g i n t o T r a c t B from a p o i n t o f e n t r y o f f o f t h e West Boulder road i n t o S t a t e l a n d which t h e y have had c o n t i n u o u s l y l e a s e d and which a d j o i n s T r a c t B. The f a c t i s t h a t t h e P l a i n t i f f s do have o t h e r ways of a c c e s s t o and from T r a c t B. The f a c t t h a t t h e o t h e r ways i n v o l v e l o n g e r d i s t a n c e s and more i n c o n v e n i e n c e i s n o t an a c c e p t a b l e b a s i s upon which t o g r a n t t h e r e l i e f r e q u e s t e d . The c r i t e r i o n i s n o t one o f c o n v e n i e n c e , b u t o f n e c e s s i t y . "1n l i g h t o f t h e f a c t s a p p e a r i n g , t h e r e q u e s t f o r i n j u n c t i v e r e l i e f by P l a i n t i f f s must b e d e n i e d . Further, i t i s a p p a r e n t t h a t a l l of t h e e s s e n t i a l f a c t u a l i s s u e s have been a d d r e s s e d and t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of a m a t e r i a l f a c t remains s o t h a t Defendants a r e e n t i t l e d t o judgment a s a m a t t e r o f law. II While p l a i n t i f f s contend t h e d i s t r i c t c o u r t e r r e d i n i t s r u l i n g s , f i n d i n g and c o n c l u s i o n s , we have c a r e f u l l y examined t h e r e c o r d and i n o u r o p i n i o n i t f u l l y s u p p o r t s t h e f i n d i n g s and conclusions of t h e court. I n such a s i t u a t i o n t h e summary judgment s h o u l d b e , and i t i s hereby, affirmed. + , /. ................................. ~, b Chief J u s t i c e 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.