## Facts

- In 1955, Daniel and Olive Neely contracted to sell a corner parcel in Ada County, Idaho, to Robert and Anita Adams.
- Because the Adamses had not finished paying under the contract, a warranty deed from the Neelys to the Adamses was placed in escrow, and record title remained in the Neelys.
- In February 1957, the Adamses signed a written instrument, in “easement” form, granting Boise Church of Christ of Boise, Idaho, Inc. the right to erect and maintain a large electric/neon sign on the property to advertise the church, for consideration of one dollar.
- The church erected and maintained the sign. The instrument was not recorded until April 1960.
- The Adamses did not complete payments under the Neely contract. The property later passed through several transfers.
- In April 1959, the Adamses quitclaimed their interest to House of Carpets, Inc., a New Mexico corporation; House of Carpets assumed the contract obligations and later paid the purchase price.
- In January 1964, due to tax delinquency, the property was conveyed by tax deed to the Nampa and Meridian Irrigation District (recorded June 1964).
- In April 1965, William and Betty Cooper divorced. As part of the property settlement, House of Carpets quitclaimed the property to Betty L. Cooper in July 1965; that deed was recorded in April 1966.
- Additional “clean-up” conveyances occurred (including deeds involving the Neelys, the Adamses, and the irrigation district), culminating in Cooper obtaining record title.
- Cooper demanded removal of the church’s sign and filed suit to quiet title and to enjoin the church from claiming any right in the property.
- After a nonjury trial, the district court quieted title in Cooper, declared the church had no interest in the property, and permanently enjoined the church from asserting any claim. The church appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the 1957 instrument from the Adamses to the church create an easement running with the land, or only a revocable license to maintain a sign?
2. If no express easement existed, did the church obtain an easement by prescription from continued use of the sign site?
3. If the interest was a license, did the church’s expenditures and reliance make the license irrevocable by equitable estoppel?
4. Could the church defeat Cooper’s title by arguing that the Adams-to–House of Carpets conveyance was void because House of Carpets, a foreign corporation, was not qualified to do business in Idaho?

## Decision

- The Idaho Supreme Court affirmed the judgment quieting title in Cooper and ordering relief that prevented the church from claiming any interest in the property.
- The court agreed with the trial court that, despite “easement” wording, the 1957 instrument conveyed only a license, based on the parties’ intent and the fact that the Adamses were contract purchasers without record title at the time.
- The court rejected the prescriptive-easement claim because the church’s use began by permission under the 1957 agreement and therefore was not adverse.
- The court rejected the irrevocable-license theory because the church did not show facts sufficient to estop the fee owner from revoking the permission.
- The court rejected the attack on Cooper’s chain of title based on House of Carpets’ alleged failure to qualify as a foreign corporation; the conveyance was not void on that ground.

## Legal Principles

- Whether a writing creates an easement or a license depends on the parties’ intent and the nature of the grantor’s interest, not merely the label used in the document.
- A license is permission to use land that generally does not create an interest in land and is ordinarily revocable, including upon transfer to a later owner, absent a recognized basis to bind successors.
- A prescriptive easement requires open, notorious, continuous use under a claim of right that is adverse to the owner; use that is permissive at its start does not satisfy the adversity requirement.
- A license may become irrevocable only in limited circumstances where equity requires it, typically requiring substantial, reasonable reliance and a basis to apply estoppel against the party seeking revocation.
- Under Idaho law, a foreign corporation’s failure to qualify to do business does not, by itself, make its deed void.

## Conclusion

The Idaho Supreme Court held that the Adamses’ 1957 “easement” for the church’s advertising sign was only a license, not a permanent property right, and the church could not convert that permission into a prescriptive easement or an irrevocable license; the court also refused to invalidate Cooper’s title based on the grantee’s foreign-corporation status, so title was quieted in Cooper and the church was barred from claiming any interest in the land.


Cooper v. Boise Church of Christ, 524 P.2d 173 (1974)