The Montana Supreme Court has weighed in on a property dispute between Patti and Steve Schubert and Jeremy and Tynagh Toepp, issuing a ruling that partially favors both parties. The case centered on the use of easements and a settlement agreement related to property in Yellowstone County.
Background of the Dispute
The heart of the matter lies in the subdivision of a property known as Tract 7B. In 2016, the original owners divided the land, creating Tracts 7B-1 and 7B-2. The Schuberts eventually acquired Tract 7B-2, which included a barn, pasture, and a well. The Toepps later purchased Tract 7B-1, which included a log home. A key element of the dispute involves an “Access Easement,” a 30-foot-wide path across the Toepps’ property, providing the Schuberts access to their land.
The Schuberts had installed an electric gate (the “Encroaching Gate”) that partially sat on the Toepps’ property. They also placed a keypad and package delivery box within the easement area. The Toepps were concerned about the gate’s placement and the Schuberts’ actions on the easement, including removing vegetation and using a tractor to maintain the area. These actions, according to the Toepps, caused damage to their property and raised safety concerns.
The Settlement Agreement and the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
The parties attempted to resolve their disputes through mediation. They reached an agreement, formalized in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). This document outlined several terms, including the relocation of the Schuberts’ keypad, the placement of a camera, and a payment from the Schuberts to the Toepps. The MOU also stated the parties would stipulate to a “judgment as proposed by Schuberts and approved by all counsel.”
However, after mediation, disagreements arose regarding the final settlement documents. The Schuberts sought to expand the easement to accommodate the Encroaching Gate, which encroached on the Toepps’ property. The Toepps refused, leading to the current legal battle.
The District Court’s Ruling
The District Court ruled on the matter, finding that the MOU implied the Encroaching Gate could remain in its current location. The court reasoned that the MOU would not have provided a global resolution to the parties’ dispute without contemplating the Encroaching Gate’s present location. The court also limited the Schuberts’ use of the Access Easement to strictly ingress and egress (entering and exiting), and awarded the Toepps their attorney fees.
The Supreme Court’s Decision: A Mixed Bag
The Montana Supreme Court reviewed the District Court’s decision and issued its own rulings, affirming some aspects while reversing others.
Encroaching Gate: The Schuberts Lose
The Supreme Court overturned the District Court’s finding that the MOU implied the Encroaching Gate could remain. The court found that the MOU, the only agreement signed by both parties, did not mention an easement for the gate. The court stated that it is not the role of the judiciary “to insert what has been omitted” in a written agreement. Therefore, the Encroaching Gate, being an unlawful encroachment, must be removed.
Access Easement: The Schuberts Prevail on Scope
The Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s ruling limiting the Schuberts’ use of the Access Easement to ingress and egress. The court cited existing case law, stating that the Schuberts’ actions on the easement, such as removing vegetation, went beyond what was necessary for access and caused unnecessary harm to the Toepps’ property.
Attorney Fees: The Toepps Win
The Supreme Court upheld the District Court’s decision to award attorney fees to the Toepps. The court agreed that the Schuberts’ insistence on including a Gate Easement, which was not part of the original agreement, needlessly prolonged the legal proceedings.
The Supreme Court’s decision, therefore, struck a balance, providing some relief to both parties.