Summary 2010 WY 160

Summary of Decision December 9, 2010

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it is issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. You will also note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you need to provide a pinpoint citation to a quote the universal portion of the citation will use that paragraph number. The pinpoint citation in the P.3d portion will need to have the reporter page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation from this, or any future opinion using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library and we will provide any needed assistance]

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court

Case Name: Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp. / Lariat Diesel Corp. v. Hansuld.

Citation: 2010 WY 160

Docket Number: No. S-09-0206, S-09-0207

URL: http://tinyurl.com/2dfdq33

Appeal from the District Court of Natrona County, the Honorable Scott W. Skavdahl, Judge

Representing Appellants/Appellees (the Hansulds), (Plaintiff/Defendant): Larry W. Harrington of Harrington Law Firm, P.C., Casper, Wyoming

Representing Appellees/Appellants (Lariat Diesel and Mr. Piel), (Defendant/ Plaintiff): Thomas M. Hogan, Casper, Wyoming

Date of Decision: December 9, 2010

Facts: Both appeals share common facts. This is the second time these parties have been before the Court. See Hansuld v. Lariat Diesel Corp., 2003 WY 165, ¶ 13, 81 P.3d 215, 218 (Wyo. 2003) (Hansuld I). A water line crosses Appellees/Appellants’ property before reaching the Appellants/Appellees’ property. A valve on Appellees/Appellants’ property controls the flow of water to the Appellants/Appellees’ property. Appellees/Appellants turned off the Appellants/Appellees’ water, claiming that no easement existed in favor of the Appellants/Appellees’ property for the water line. The Appellants/Appellees brought the instant legal action, seeking, among other things, an injunction and a declaration that they had an implied water line easement across the Appellees/Appellants’ property. Appellees/Appellants counterclaimed seeking, among other things, declaratory relief for a precise legal description of the location and extent of its implied access easement (decided by Hansuld I). The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.

Issues: I- Whether the easement for a water line across the Appellees’ property, in favor of the Appellants’ property, is necessary and beneficial. II – Whether the creation of an easement for the water line was intended by the LLC when it originally divided the property. For the second case: Whether the district court correctly ruled on summary judgment that Appellee was precluded from seeking a declaration of the exact legal description of the location of its access easement across the Appellants’ property.

Holdings: As to issue I, The burden to the Appellees’ property is simply not great enough. The Court found that putting the Appellants to the expense of laying an equivalent water line entails a disproportionate effort and expense to the finding of the existence of an easement for the water line by implication. As to issue II, the Court agreed with the Appellees that Appellants presented no evidence to adequately rebut the presumption that an easement for the water line was intended. The Court found the district court’s decision granting summary judgment to Appellant on this issue was in error.

As to the second case, the matter before the district court in Hansuld I dealt solely with whether an access easement existed by implication. This matter was distinct from where such easement might be situated. Appellees’ request for declaration of the exact legal description of the location of its access easement across the Appellants’ property was not precluded by res judicata nor the doctrine of collateral estoppel. The district court’s decision in this appeal was reversed, and the case is remanded to the district court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

J. Golden delivered the opinion for the court.