Sander v. Nicholson

Summarized by:

  • Court: Oregon Court of Appeals
  • Area(s) of Law: Property Law
  • Date Filed: 08-26-2020
  • Case #: A161996
  • Judge(s)/Court Below: DeVore, J. for the Court; DeHoog, P.J. & Aoyagi, J.
  • Full Text Opinion

Under Oregon case law a “party who suffers interference with the right to use an easement may bring a tort claim;” “equitable claim, seeking an injunction;” or an “equitable action to enforce those obligations as servitude that run with the land to bind successors in interest.” See Landauer v. Steelman, 275 Or 135, 141, 549 P2d 1256 (1976); Andrews v. North Coast Development, 270 Or 24, 36, 526 P2d 1009 (1974); Fitzstephens v. Watson, et al, 218 Or 185, 206-10, 344 P2d 221 (1959).

Appellants appeal the trial court’s ruling that the respondents had an easement across their land, and they obstructed it. Appellants assign error to the trial court ruling that there was an easement “for the purpose of ingress and egress to [respondents’] property.” Alternatively, respondents filed a cross-appeal alleging breach of contract and breach of implied good faith and fair dealing based on the agreement by the previous owners of Appellant's property. Under Oregon case law a “party who suffers interference with the right to use an easement may bring a tort claim;” “equitable claim, seeking an injunction;” or an “equitable action to enforce those obligations as servitudes that run with the land to bind successors in interest.” See Landauer v. Steelman, 275 Or 135, 141, 549 P2d 1256 (1976); Andrews v. North Coast Development, 270 Or 24, 36, 526 P2d 1009 (1974); Fitzstephens v. Watson, 218 Or 185, 206-10, 344 P2d 221 (1959).  The Court found that there was no error by the trial court in determining there was an easement. However, the Court did find that it was error to deny Defendant's directed verdict motion for the contract claims and in finding for the plaintiff on the liability contract claims because a contract claim is not the “proper claim” for the Respondents to bring. Reversed and remanded for  entry  of  judgment  dismissing  with  prejudice  plaintiffs’  claims  of  breach  of  contract  and  breach  of  the  implied  covenant  of  good  faith  and  fair  dealingotherwise  affirmed.  On cross-appeal, affirmed.

Advanced Search


Back to Top