Hunt v. Richardson – 7/31/2007

August 7, 2007

Arizona Court of Appeals Division One Holds That When Considering the Propriety of an Interference with an Easement, the Fact Finder Must Consider Whether the Obstruction is Appropriate to the Property’s Use, not Whether the Obstruction is Essential.

Phillip and Julia Richardson erected an automated gate across the public easement running along their property. Adjacent landowners sued for interference with their easement rights. The Richardsons counterclaimed, asking for a judgment declaring that the adjacent owners shared responsibility for maintaining the easement and liability for any future injuries suffered due to poor maintenance of the easement.

The trial court granted summary judgment against the Richardsons and entered a permanent injunction requiring removal of the gate and denied the Richardsons’ counterclaim as non-justiciable.

The Arizona Court of Appeals partially reversed the trial court’s order. Though the appellate court rejected the Richardsons’ claim that there was no public easement, it determined that a material question of fact existed as to whether the gate unreasonably interfered with the adjacent landowners’ rights of ingress and egress across the easement. As a matter of first impression, the court held that an obstruction to an easement need not be “essential” to the use of the servient owner’s property to be permissible but need only be “appropriate” to that use – a material issue of fact in this case. The court also rejected the adjacent landowners’ suggestion that Arizona law presumes that a gate constitutes unreasonable interference with access to an easement and held that the Richardsons’ counterclaim for maintenance – but not future liability – is justiciable.

Opinion authored by Judge Timmer, with Presiding Judge Kessler and Judge Weisberg concurring.