Methonen v. Stone
Alaska Supreme Court
941 P.2d 1248 (1997)
- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Howard and Daniel Hede subdivided a tract of land into 11 lots. The Hedes dug a water well in one lot, Lot 10. The well supplied water to the other lots. In 1974, the Hedes sold Lot 10 to Fermo Albertini, subject to an agreement that Albertini would continue the water service to the other lots. This agreement was not recorded until 1985. In 1976, Marcus and Gwendolyn Methonen (defendants) purchased Lot 10. The deed stated that the purchase was subject to “easements, restrictions, reservations, and exceptions of record, and well site as delineated on the subdivision plat.” The subdivision plat included the well but did not mention the water service to the other lots. However, the Methonens were aware at the time of the purchase that water lines ran from the well to other lots. After their purchase, the Methonens accepted money from other lot owners for water service for years, but in 1985 shut off water service to the other lots. At this point, the 1974 agreement between the Hedes and Albertini was recorded. Rick Stone (plaintiff), an owner of one of the other lots, sued the Methonens, claiming that he had an easement for the water service. The Methonens asserted that they had no obligation to provide water service to other lots. The trial court granted Stone summary judgment. The Methonens appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rabinowitz, 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.