The SD
Supreme Court handed down one decision this morning, holding inter alia:
1) Summary Judgment Reversed
and Remanded for trial on claim to establish easement implied by prior use
Summary
follows:
HEUMILLER v.
HANSEN, 2020 S.D. 56: This case involves a dispute over an alleged easement crossing
rural farmland in McCook County. The
litigation is among family members, arising after the parents began divesting
themselves of title to the land.
Eventually, there was an attempt to block utilization of an access road
across the property. The trial court initially
granted a preliminary injunction against the blockage. As the case progressed, three theories in
support of the easement were set forth at the trial level: 1) easement by prescription; 2) easement
by necessity; and 3) and easement implied by prior use. The trial
court eventually granted summary judgment against the Plaintiffs, denying
recognition of an easement. Plaintiffs present
this appeal solely on the basis of an easement implied by prior use. The
SD Supreme Court agreed with Plaintiffs, reversing and remanding for
trial. This opinion reviews the four common
law elements necessary for the establishment of an easement
implied by prior use, finding the trial court erred in its analysis
regarding elements # 3 and # 4. This
decision is unanimous, with opinion authored by Justice Salter.
For those
who desiring information about the establishment of easement implied by
prior use, ¶16 of the opinion is set forth below:
[¶16.] To establish an easement implied by prior use,
a plaintiff must prove the following elements:
(1)
the relevant parcels of land had been in
unitary ownership;
(2)
the use giving rise to the easement was
in existence at the time of the conveyance dividing ownership of the property;
(3)
the use had been so long continued and
so obvious as to show that it was meant to be permanent; and
(4) at the time of the severance, the easement was necessary
for the proper and reasonable enjoyment of the dominant tract.
Springer
v. Cahoy, 2012 S.D. 32, ¶ 7, 814 N.W.2d 131, 133 (quoting Thompson,
2003 S.D. 12, ¶ 14, 657 N.W.2d at 305-06).
This decision may be accessed at
http://ujs.sd.gov/Supreme_Court/opinions.aspx .
