## Facts

- Benjamin and Verna Flaig and Marvin and Edith Gramm owned adjacent rural properties supplied by a single domestic water well.
- For many years, both households used the well under a shared arrangement, including a common pumphouse and water line system and shared electricity and maintenance costs.
- The parties acted on a mutual belief that the well lay on the common boundary, reflecting an understanding that each had a right to use it.
- A later survey showed the well was located entirely on the Gramms’ property.
- After the survey, the Gramms asserted the Flaigs had no legal right to use the well and could be cut off.
- The Flaigs had relied on continued access to the well for domestic water and made decisions and improvements on that assumption.

## Issues

1. Whether the Flaigs proved an easement by estoppel allowing continued use of the well located on the Gramms’ property.

## Decision

- The Montana Supreme Court reversed the district court’s judgment for the Gramms.
- The Court held the Flaigs established an easement by estoppel to continue using the well.
- The case was remanded for entry of judgment recognizing the easement.

## Legal Principles

- Equitable estoppel may create or enforce an easement by estoppel when a landowner’s words or conduct induce another to believe a continuing use right exists.
- The elements of equitable estoppel are: (1) conduct or representation inconsistent with a later position, (2) reasonable reliance by the claimant, and (3) a change of position or detriment making it inequitable to permit repudiation.
- Longstanding permission, shared operation, and shared expense consistent with an easement can constitute the inducing conduct for estoppel, even if the arrangement began under a mutual mistake about a boundary.
- When reliance is foreseeable and denial would deprive the claimant of an essential water source or impose substantial hardship, equity can preclude the titleholder from denying the use right.

## Conclusion

The Court recognized an easement by estoppel for continued well use because the Gramms’ long permission and shared well arrangement induced reasonable, detrimental reliance by the Flaigs, making it inequitable to cut off access based solely on the later survey.


Flaig v. Gramm, 295 Mont. 297, 983 P.2d 396 (Mont. 1999)