LUDWIG v SPOKLIE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NO. 96-336 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA 1996 ROBERT W. LUDWIG, JEANNE M. LUDWIG, GARY G. GUNDERSON, KAREN L. GUNDERSON, CRAIG AMBROSE, CONNIE JO AMBROSE, JON E. ENDERSEN, LORIE R. ENDERSEN, MARIE HEITMAN, and BERYL ESHOM, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. ROBERT SPOKLIE, Defendant APPEAL FROM: and Respondent. District Court of the In and for the County The Honorable Katherine Eleventh Judicial of Flathead, R. Curtis, Judge District, presiding. COUNSEL OF RECORD: For Appellant: Stephen Johnson For C. Berg; Warden, & Berg; Kalispell, Christiansen, Montana Respondent: Douglas Weld; Wold Polson;C Montana '* Submitted Law Firm; on Briefs: December 5, 1996 Justice Terry The appellants, against the N. Trieweiler the burdens Ludwigs from their do not have developing Ludwigs and using appeal District the the his judgment an District action Court for County, to enjoin easement for access bring the Court an action easement, of filed Court. Flathead The District to the a reserved and using standing of al., in in property. opinion et. Spoklie, District developing the W. Ludwig, Robert Judicial from which Robert respondent, Eleventh Spoklie delivered determined to enjoin and dismissed District Court. that Spoklie the action. We affirm the Court. The dispositive erred when it an action issue determined to enjoin on appeal that Spoklie is Ludwigs from whether do not developing the have District Court standing and using his to bring easement. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Ludwigs of record. The first easement in which 1947. utility is is both 1977. time attached" sought of the to the subject to to the Bonneville located within expressly The BPA's Power to purchase real property the of Brian line and road the and BPA's Caroline is Yarbroughs' reserved easement. Yarbroughs' property. A valid also convey 70-20-308, 2 Administration for by line easement would Section easements boundaries the transmission to the valid easement reserved property. two transmission a sixty-foot-wide and entitlement Spoklie conveyance was is a two-hundred-foot-wide It and in is second purposes. Yarbrough which was granted The easement, in own property MCA. "all senior easements In anticipation of that acquisition, within the he began boundaries of using the and developing the road road and reserved sixty-foot petitioned the District they obtained located utility easement. In response, injunctive relief. restraining entered Ludwigs In order November and, a preliminary 1992, on December injunction 18, 1992, which court the enjoined for a temporary District Spoklie Court from constructing, improving, repairing or otherwise doing any work upon or traveling upon or allowing any traveling upon his purported existing road upon the westerly most aspect of the property of the Plaintiffs herein. Spoklie Subsequently, the sixty-foot road acquired and utility obtained, from the BPA, recognizes his right to easement which rights. The Spoklie easement. must Relevant to Use the this Agreement to in over also when property attached land Agreement comply Yarbroughs' easement a Land use the establishes he appeal uses is which and the it. He also which it and the BPA holds senior conditions with develops following his junior provision: BPA is not the owner of this property and PLEASE NOTE: you must obtain the owners' if you are not the owner, permission to use this property. There may also be other uses of the property which might be located within the same area as your project. This aqreement is subiect to those other riuhts. Following on February a series 2, remaining were 1996. issues injunction decide those of motions, Both parties regarding issues issues of without a pretrial Ludwigs' law, and that a trial 3 conference stipulated petition the was held that for District the a only permanent Court could On February "do not on the have 13, 1996, the to restrict standing basis of it Accordingly, the dismissed Ludwigs Land or Court denied District Court previously entered for order. and preliminary on December 23, 1993. " 18, new On April motion; the easement November motion Ludwigs his of dated a from Ludwigs' use that action. filed dissolved ordered [Spoklie's] Ludwigs' relief District Court Use Agreement subsequently reconsideration, District trial, 18, the 14, on May 1996, 1996, the injunction which it had 1992. DISCUSSION The dispositive erred when it an action issue determined to enjoin of that Spoklie When we review standard on appeal Ludwigs from is do not court's whether Countyv. UnionReserveCoalCo. whether those (19951, the have developing a district review is District standing and using conclusions 271 Mont. easement. of are 459, to bring his conclusions Court law, correct. 469, the Carbon 898 P.2d 680, 686. The District third-party Court that, to enforce its dismissed Ludwigs' Ludwigs determined enjoin Spoklie of therefore, On appeal, it determined beneficiaries BPA and action Court that they from the they that Agreement do not provisions. for contend that have do not have and developing 4 intended Spoklie basis, and the to the bring an District relief. District standing not standing injunctive the are between On that petition using Ludwigs Court to bring his erred an action easement. when to They maintain that, Agreement between an action to the as intended Spoklie enforce following third-party and the its terms. beneficiaries BPA, they have Specifically, of standing they seek the to bring to enforce provision: PLEASE NOTE: BPA is not the owner of this property and if you are not the owner, you must obtain the owners' permission to use this property. There may also be other uses of the property which might be located within the same area as your project. This agreement is subiect to those other rights. Ludwigs permission assert that, to use express terms of pursuant to Agreement, enjoin the Spoklie their because property, the from the he Agreement. they developing following did failed not to Therefore, are entitled and using In Hovmanv.MIAServiceContracts we adopted Spoklie (1993), definition comply they to his their with claim bring the that, an action to 858 P.2d 19, easement. 260 Mont. of obtain 67, an intended beneficiary: Unless otherwise agreed between promisor and (1) a beneficiary of a promise is an intended promisee, beneficiary if recognition of a right to performance in beneficiary is appropriate to effectuate the the intention of the parties and either . . . the circumstances indicate that the (b) intends to give the beneficiary the benefit promised performance. Harman, (Second) 260 of Mont. Contracts the intention the 850 5 302 order of benefit of 72, in Therefore, for at a third contracting to P.2d at 22-23 promisee of the (citing Restatement (1981)). establish party, it parties 5 the must to existence of be shown that benefit the a contract it third was the party. See, e.g., R.H. Grover, 338, (1989) , 238 278, Mont. 284, 777 P.2.d 342. The BPA is you relevant not BPA's provision the owner obtain must conclude is Inc. v. Flynn Ins. Co. the that this authority of The BPA property for first in and time to Spoklie is, it is can be created to not from both use Although the reserved and recorded easement, is entitled easement without required to obtain As the object to the unreasonably the an action the Agreement its 862 P.2d enforce the to use may bear the BPA's upon the 6 that Ludwigs the same easement was it is a as Spoklie's, holder of a valid use and develop Ludwigs' the his permission. BPA has the junior 42, land Am. Jur . 2d Easements right 45. See Gabriel In fact, to which easement easement. v. Wood the BPA terms and development with such to a senior 176, 170, interfered of with through Spoklie, use on the easement, as the easement, any interferes bring senior preclude 261 Mont. (1993), while of and unreasonably could holder use BPA's 25 Spoklie, We limits of to easements, Therefore, owner, source. senior ยง 89 (1966). the to benefit the same land. "[the] property." the easements andLicenses being not this intended have and additional on the you are some other therefore, easement and if that, use and development purposes. and states acknowledges the derived nonexclusive lawfully merely and that different Agreement permission consent rights the property provision to away this owners' owned by Ludwigs, by taking of of the of his junior easement, easement. However, senior question of what Agreement constitutes if unreasonable not interference give Ludwigs conditions interests BPA. are are Their of his standing contained Ludwigs only It reserved Mont. 216 When Spoklie the reserved time the fact, have required legally the to In before obtain sum, took underlying obtain property valid property, the or the and 982, to Kuhlman v. Rivera at the Spoklie did, in He is not into, to property." do what use acquired Therefore, to use the case, a valid he also it. BPA was entered this easement 985. attached permission use purposes; land. is cautioned he action, It legal owns the the the holds tenement, the of the utility dominant put and right the relevant if to Spoklie had him permission easement, and the Agreement owners' road in and the regarding terms their he is already develop his valid make sure that, easement. property. the and and Spoklie Spoklie 701 P.2d do--in any both that interest Ludwigs' to of on the for permission and recorded he however, that "owners' does terms tenement, Spoklie to be based 358, with entitled reserved against acquired easement it specific servient action an actual Agreement the easement 353, easement, the interests have recorded he has (1985), of undisputed, and senior enforce to the of would BPA's it. owners cause is therefore, within the the to subordinate easement grant. with the to legal on notice he did use legal provision right that not already Spoklie, it. right to he would the need own either pursuant to in use use the the Agreement to the to his underlying does not, therefore, provide terminate or We it his conclude enjoin of the Ludwigs Spoklie from judgment We concur: ief Land Justice Use Agreement that do not the to not District an intended between the District have bring action to rights. are developing of standing Ludwigs we hold that The easement that Accordingly, held with restrict beneficiaries BPA. Ludwigs Court standing and using Court to his is Spoklie did bring easement. affirmed. third-party not and err an action the when to
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.
