Plaintiff filed this action for injunctive relief against defendant, City of Newberg, asserting that the city should be prohibited from paving an easement on her property that the city uses to access water reservoir facilities. After a bench trial, the trial court denied plaintiffs request for an injunction and granted the citys request for a declaration giving the city the right to pave the easement. The trial court also granted the citys request for a declaration prohibiting plaintiff from using the easement for anything other than ingress and egress. On appeal, plaintiff raises three assignments of error challenging both the trial courts decisions surrounding the paving of the easement and declaration prohibiting plaintiff from using the easement for anything but ingress and egress to her property. We summarily reject plaintiffs first two assignments of error relating to the paving of the easement and reverse the portion of the declaration forbidding plaintiff from using the easement except for ingress and egress.
Plaintiff requests that we exercise our discretion to conduct de novo review. We decline to do so because this is not an exceptional case. See ORS 19.415(3)(b) (providing that “the Court of Appeals, acting in its sole discretion, may try the cause anew upon the record”); ORAP 5.40(8)(c) (limiting de novo review to “exceptional” cases).
Plaintiff owns property in unincorporated Yamhill County along Highway 219. The city owns adjacent property that has two reservoirs. A prior owner of the property granted the city an easement in 1984. The express easement provides, in part:
“The purpose of this easement is to provide ingress and egress for the CITY OF NEWBERG employees, officials, and their agents from Oregon State Highway 219 to the CITY OF NEWBERGs water reservoir facilities, and is not to be construed as a public way or a grant to the general public. * * *
“This easement granted above shall be perpetual, however, its continued use and existence shall be dependent upon:
“a. The CITY OF NEWBERG maintaining and grading the surface of the entire roadway. All future maintenance and grading of the roadway shall be the responsibility of the CITY OF NEWBERG.
“* * * * *
“c. The CITY OF NEWBERG shall make reasonable repairs and/or reestablish a wire fence that runs adjacent along the above described easement.”
(Uppercase in original.)
In her first and second assignments of error, plaintiff asserts that the trial court erred in (1) granting the citys declaration that the city has the right to pave the easement and (2) denying plaintiffs request for an injunction prohibiting the city from paving the easement. Specifically, plaintiff contends that the trial court erred in concluding that the citys obligation to “maintain” the easement allows the city to pave the road. Plaintiff further asserts that the evidence in the record does not demonstrate that paving the easement is reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the easement, viz., ingress and egress.
We review the interpretation of an express easement for errors of law. Tressel v. Williams, 291 Or. App. 215, 222, 420 P.3d 31 (2018). In construing an easement, our task “is to discern the nature and scope of the easements purpose and to give effect to that purpose in a practical manner.” Watson v. Banducci, 158 Or. App. 223, 230, 973 P.2d 395 (1999). Whether proposed changes are reasonably necessary to accomplish the purpose of the easement is a fact-based inquiry and must be determined from the circumstances of each case. See Clark v. Kuhn, 171 Or. App. 29, 33, 15 P.3d 37 (2000).
Having reviewed plaintiffs arguments on appeal, the evidence in the record, and relevant case law, we summarily conclude that the trial courts findings regarding the citys right to pave the easement are supported by evidence in the record and that the trial court did not commit reversible error in denying plaintiffs request for an injunction and in granting the citys request for a declaration. In so doing, we note that a more detailed discussion of the facts and our analysis in this particular case would not significantly benefit the bench, the bar, or the public.
Turning to plaintiffs third assignment of error, we agree with plaintiffs contention that the trial court erred in granting the citys request for a declaration prohibiting plaintiff from using the easement for anything other than ingress and egress. “The servient estate owner maintains dominion over the easement land and has the right to use that land, as long as that use does not unreasonably interfere with the easement owners use.” Kalfas v. Adams, 257 Or. App. 234, 249, 306 P.3d 706 (2013). In this case, there was no evidence that plaintiff riding her horses on the easement or allowing her horses to graze around the easement unreasonably interfered with the citys use of the easement. The trial courts rationale was premised on the belief that the language in the easement “requiring the maintenance of the fences along the easements border was to prevent animals from obstructing the right of way granted to the City of Newberg.” However, there is no evidence in the record to support that rationale. Indeed, as we explained in Kalfas, the owner of the easement “is limited to the uses of the easement that are reasonably necessary to satisfy the easements intended purpose.” Id. Because the city did not present any evidence that plaintiffs use of the easement with her horses interfered with its right to use the easement, the trial court erred in declaring that the city could forbid plaintiff from using the easement for anything other than ingress or egress.
Reversed as to declaration forbidding plaintiff from using easement for anything but ingress and egress to her property; otherwise affirmed.
PER CURIAM