Christensen v. City Of Pocatello

124 P.3d 1008 (2005)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Harper Road was platted and dedicated as a public city road in 1946. It has never been opened or used as such. The road runs through property owned by Ps. A 'roadway and utility' easement encumbers the west 30 feet of the Fairchild property. The north end of the easement abuts a piece of land owned by D and called Sewer Lagoon. The easement was created in 1974 when Western National Corporation deeded the Fairchild property to Calvin and Marie Mercer, reserving the easement in order to provide access to the Sewer Lagoon property. When the easement was created, Western National owned the dominant Sewer Lagoon property. That property was deeded to D later in 1974, but D has not used the easement for many years. Ps own lots on both sides of Harper Road. In 1997, they built an earthen berm on one of their lots. The berm extends across Harper Road. Ps also own two outbuildings which encroach on Harper Road and which were built well before the road was platted in 1946. D announced its intent to expand a Greenway onto Harper Road and the easement, thus connecting Harper Road, the easement, and the Sewer Lagoon property with the rest of the Greenway. Ps sued D seeking declaratory relief and an injunction. In part, Ps alleged that D's proposed use is not consistent with that permitted on a public road and that the easement is a private easement and that the public's use of it as part of the Greenway would unlawfully increase the burden on their servient property. D filed a counterclaim. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The court ruled that Harper Road is a road, not an alley and that D has the authority to limit traffic on Harper Road to bicyclists and pedestrians. The case proceeded to a bench trial, and the district court issued a decision, ruling that D was not estopped from opening Harper Road; that the proposed use of the easement did not impermissibly increase the burden to the servient Fairchild property. Ps appealed.