## Facts

- Aztec Limited, Inc. bought land adjacent to Pocatello Creek Road and later learned a strip of its property lay south of the traveled roadway.
- Pocatello Creek Road was generally a platted public road on neighboring lands, but the portion crossing Aztec’s property had not been dedicated; public use created only a prescriptive right of way in the traveled road.
- Freeman Lane was a dead-end access road created by reciprocal deeds among homeowners; the deeded easement stopped short of Pocatello Creek Road, leaving a small gap on Aztec’s strip.
- For at least eleven years, four homeowners and their successors crossed Aztec’s strip to reach Pocatello Creek Road; Aztec conceded a limited prescriptive easement for that residential access.
- The City of Pocatello paved and maintained Freeman Lane without obtaining a recorded interest in Aztec’s strip or a formal dedication to public use.
- Creekside, successor to land south of Aztec’s parcel, began building a 200-unit apartment complex and used Freeman Lane as the sole access.
- Creekside’s project substantially increased traffic over the gap area and Creekside physically widened the lane where it crossed Aztec’s strip.
- Aztec sued for damages (general and punitive) and injunctive relief, alleging Creekside exceeded the scope of any prescriptive right and committed trespass.

## Issues

1. Whether the access across Aztec’s strip was a private prescriptive easement benefiting specific properties or a public easement/roadway.
2. Whether using the route as sole access for a 200-unit apartment complex was a permissible increase in the degree of use or an impermissible change in the character and burden of the prescriptive easement.
3. Whether physically widening the road across Aztec’s strip exceeded the prescriptive easement and constituted trespass.
4. Whether Aztec could seek nominal damages (and potentially punitive damages) despite not proving actual damages.
5. Whether the trial court properly dismissed Aztec’s damages claim at the close of Aztec’s case and denied injunctive relief.

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court held the crossing over Aztec’s strip was a private prescriptive easement limited to the historic residential-access use by the identified homeowners and successors, not a public road.
- The Court held Creekside’s use of the easement as sole access for a large apartment complex, and the associated increase in burden, constituted an impermissible enlargement and change in character beyond the prescriptive use.
- The Court held Creekside’s widening of the roadway across Aztec’s strip exceeded the easement’s physical scope and amounted to trespass to the extent it went beyond the established servitude.
- The Court held the trial court erred by dismissing the damages claim solely for failure to prove actual damages; proof of trespass supports at least nominal damages, and punitive damages were not barred as a matter of law on that basis alone.
- The Court reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings, including appropriate injunctive relief and further litigation of damages.

## Legal Principles

- A prescriptive easement’s scope is measured by the use through which it was acquired; it cannot be materially changed to impose a new or substantially greater burden on the servient estate.
- An increase in the degree of use may be permissible if consistent with the original prescriptive purpose, but a qualitative change in use (including materially different traffic and burdens) is not.
- Municipal paving or maintenance, without dedication or acquisition of rights, does not convert a private prescriptive easement into a public road.
- A dominant user may not unilaterally enlarge the physical dimensions of a prescriptive easement beyond what was established by the historic use.
- Trespass to land entitles the landowner to nominal damages upon proof of unauthorized invasion, even absent proof of actual damages; nominal damages may permit consideration of punitive damages where wrongful conduct is shown.

## Conclusion

The court treated the access over Aztec’s strip as a limited private prescriptive easement for residential use, held Creekside’s apartment-complex access and widening exceeded that scope and constituted trespass, and ruled Aztec could pursue injunctive relief and at least nominal damages, with punitive damages not foreclosed solely for lack of actual damages.


Aztec Ltd., Inc. v. Creekside Inv. Co., 100 Idaho 566 (Idaho 1979)