Methonen v. Stone

941 P.2d 1248 (1997)

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

Howard and Daniel Hede subdivided eleven lots. They retained Lot 10, drilled a well there, constructed a well house, and installed water lines that supplied water to Lots 1 through 10. The subdivision plat which the Hedes recorded indicates the location of the well but does not disclose that it services the other lots. When the Hedes sold Lot 10 to Albertini in October 1974, the Hedes and Albertini executed an agreement (Water Agreement) to continue the water service. This Water Agreement was not recorded until 1985. In November 1974, Albertini conveyed Lot 10 to Dennis Oney. In June 1975, Oney sold Lot 10 to Kathryn Ostrosky. Finally, in January 1976, Ostrosky conveyed Lot 10 to Ds. The statutory warranty deed to Ds contained the following provision: SUBJECT TO easements, restrictions, reservations, and exceptions of record, and well site as delineated on the subdivision plat. Ds were aware of the pipes running from the well on their property to other lots in the subdivision. Ds claim that the real estate agent 'led them to understand that I did not need to worry about maintaining the water system or providing water to anyone.' Shortly after taking title, Ds learned that the owners of the other lots in the subdivision believed that Ds were legally obligated to provide them with water. Ds 'accepted money for the water system from system users when they provided it to him.' Ds refused to acknowledge an obligation to supply water to the other lots, and shut off the water supply. Settlement negotiations ensued and service was restored. Ps finally recorded the 1974 Hedes-Albertini Water Agreement (recognizing the original community water agreement). The Hedes, Albertini, and Ostrosky signed an 'Acknowledgment of Water Well Agreement.' This [document contains the statement that Albertini, Ostrosky, and Ds were all 'aware of the [Hede-Albertini] Water Well Agreement and of the need to serve the lots in the subdivision with water.' Ps purchased Lots 3 and 4 in November 1985 and October 1991. Ds continued to deny any obligation to provide water and discontinued service again in July 1994. Ps sued Ds contending they had an easement in water. The superior court determined that Ds' deed created an easement and ruled for Ps. Ds appealed.