Graves v. Dennis
South Dakota Supreme Court
691 N.W.2d 315 (2004)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
William and Nelva Blenner owned Lot 11 and the south portion of Lot 1 (Lot 1 had been subdivided). Elson and Anna Leavitt and Rita Larson (collectively, the Leavitts) owned the north portion of Lot 1. In 1978, the Blenners granted the Leavitts an easement running from Lot 1 North, through Lot 11 to a main road. In 1981, Thomas Vaughn bought Lot 11, and the Blenners bought Lot 1 North. The Blenners obtained an easement from Vaughn, which ran from Lot 1 South, through Lot 11 to the main road. The Blenners used this 1981 easement exclusively for access to the main road. The 1978 easement from Lot 1 North was never used. In 1982, the Blenners sold Lot 1 to Gary and Patricia Graves (plaintiffs). Like the Blenners, the Graveses used the 1981 easement exclusively. Vaughn, unaware of the 1978 easement although it was recorded, built a garage blocking the 1978 easement. In 2002, Thomas and Carla Dennis (defendants) bought Lot 11. A dispute arose between the Graveses and the Dennises regarding the 1981 easement, and the Graveses brought suit. While the suit was pending, the Graveses learned of the 1978 easement. They amended their complaint to seek a declaratory judgment regarding their right to use the 1978 easement. The trial court ruled that the 1978 easement had been abandoned. The Graveses appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Konenkamp, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 806,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
