Listen to this article
Where a judgment has been entered concerning a dock, the trial court’s order granting a prescriptive easement to the defendant to place a 90-foot dock in the water in front of the plaintiffs’ property, but denying the defendant’s claim of adverse possession, should be affirmed.
“In this property dispute, plaintiffs/counterdefendants, Jack A. Clark and Dixie L. Clark, appeal by right the trial court’s judgment following a bench trial. On appeal, the Clarks argue that the trial court erred by concluding that defendant/counterplaintiff, Cottonwood Resort, also known as Cotton Wood Resort, established a prescriptive easement to place a dock on a portion of land owned by the Clarks. The Clarks further argue that the court erred by recognizing the easement because Cottonwood only sought such an easement to cure its failure to conduct reasonable diligence while purchasing the adjoining property. The Clarks also contend that Cottonwood has abandoned the property. And, in a cross-appeal, Cottonwood argues that it adversely possessed the disputed property, which provided it with the associated riparian rights.
“In addition, the Clarks assert claims concerning a stipulated judgment and accompanying settlement agreement that the Clarks entered into with defendants-appellees Leonard Wannemacher, Donald L. Wannemacher, Terry P. Wannemacher, Thomas J. Wannemacher, Todd A. Wannemacher, Blaine Martine, Dale Martin, Jaylene Wurst-Ryan, Nanette WurstWeaver, Cheryl Hershey, Jim Klima, Mary Jo Maag, Robert E. Klima and Saundra J Klima, as trustees of the Robert E. Klima & Saundra J. Klima Revocable Living Trust, Louis W. Wilcox, and Tim Wilcox—who are collectively identified by the parties as the ‘Lot 10 defendants’— concerning the ownership of an island. On appeal, the Clarks assert that the trial court erred by declining their request to reform the judgment and agreement to effectuate the intent of the agreement, which was for the Clarks to own the entire island. The Clarks believe that, at a minimum, the trial court should have held an evidentiary hearing on the matter.
“For the reasons that follow, we affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
“We start with the dispute between the Clarks and Cottonwood, which was, as noted, resolved through a bench trial. We find, in the parties’ arguments on appeal and cross-appeal, no error warranting reversal.
“Finally, we turn to the dispute between the Clarks and the Lot 10 defendants, regarding ownership over the southerly portion of the island that lies across the channel from Lot 10. The Clarks argue that the trial court erred by dismissing their petition to reform the stipulated judgment and accompanying settlement agreement with the Lot 10 defendants. According to the Clarks, the intent of the agreement was to establish the Clarks’ ownership over the entire island, including the portion across the channel from Lot 10; the agreement’s use of the Mostrom Survey to do so was based on a mistake of fact regarding the Survey; and the court should have, at minimum, held an evidentiary hearing on the matter before ruling. Given the limited record now before us, we must reverse and remand for further proceedings.
“For the reasons discussed, we affirm the trial court’s order granting a prescriptive easement to Cottonwood to place a 90-foot dock in the water in front of the 908 property but denying Cottonwood’s claim of adverse possession, reverse the trial court’s order denying the petition to reform the stipulated judgment and awarding attorney fees to the Lot 10 defendants, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
