King v. Newman

In 2000, Montrose County approved a three-unit subdivision of a 39-acre parcel. All three lots were accessed by a 'historic driveway' on a common easement. In addition, the subdivision plat showed a 'proposed driveway' across a steep and marshy area of Lot 3, along with a note indicating that the proposed driveway would replace the historic driveway as the access to Lot 3. However, the proposed driveway was never constructed. In 2004, Theodore Dekker granted a conservation easement on the three lots to the Black Canyon Regional Land Trust (BCRLT). The easement allowed the maintenance of existing roads, but prohibited new roads except with BCRLT's prior approval, which was conditioned on the new road not adversely affecting the conservation values. The baseline documentation stated that the only existing road was the historic driveway. After a series of interim conveyances, Marianne King and Marnae Woodland respectively purchased Lots 1 and 2 in 2012 and 2013, while Jared Newman purchased Lot 3 in 2015. Prior to purchasing Lot 3, Newman consulted with BCRLT regarding access, and BRCLT drafted a letter stating that the construction of the proposed driveway would cause unacceptable and irreparable damage to the conservation values of the protected property. King and Woodland filed suit against Newman and BCRLT, seeking a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief to establish the proposed driveway as the sole access to Lot 3. Among other arguments, the plaintiffs contended that BCRLT accepted the conservation easement subject to the plat note identifying the proposed driveway as the replacement access to Lot 3. They also claimed that in the conservation easement Dekker had no authority to grant restrictions on the proposed driveway, which was a reserved property right under the plat. And they claimed that because the baseline included an image of the plat depicting the unbuilt proposed driveway, that it was, therefore, an 'existing road' under the conservation easement.

Holding: After a bench trial, the trial court ruled that the conservation easement clearly prohibited the proposed driveway unless BCRLT expressly approved it. The court noted that plaintiffs could not have relied on the survey plat note regarding the proposed driveway because they had a record and actual notice that the historic driveway was the only existing road at the time they purchased their lots. The court also held that the lot owners were barred by the doctrines of laches and estoppel from attempting to enforce the plat note against one another.

Analysis and Notes: This case is a solid victory for the land trust and for the straightforward application of a conservation easement's restrictions. The plaintiffs articulated a number of creative theories as to why the plat note should override the easement, but the court wasn't buying any of them.