## Facts

- Howard and Daniel Hede subdivided a tract into an 11-lot subdivision and retained Lot 10, where they drilled a water well, built a well house, and installed lines supplying water to Lots 1–10.
- The recorded subdivision plat showed the well’s location on Lot 10 but did not state that it served other lots or that Lot 10 was burdened by a water-service obligation.
- In October 1974, the Hedes sold Lot 10 to Fermo Albertini and executed a written “Water Agreement” stating the Hedes had previously agreed to furnish water to owners of Lots 1–10; the agreement was not recorded until 1985.
- After Albertini, Lot 10 was conveyed to Dennis Oney (1974), then to Kathryn Ostrosky (1975), and then to Marcus and Gwendolyn Methonen (1976).
- The 1976 deed to the Methonens stated the conveyance was “SUBJECT TO easements, restrictions, reservations and exceptions of record, and well site as delineated on the subdivision plat.”
- At the time of purchase, the Methonens were aware that pipes ran from the well on Lot 10 to other lots, but Methonen later asserted he was led to believe he had no duty to maintain the system or supply water.
- For years after buying Lot 10, Methonen accepted money from other lot owners for water service when they paid it, but he disputed any legal duty to provide water.
- In February 1985, Methonen shut off water to the other lots; after discussions, service resumed.
- During the 1985 dispute, the 1974 Water Agreement was recorded, and the Hedes, Albertini, and Ostrosky signed an “Acknowledgment of Water Well Agreement” stating, among other things, that Albertini, Ostrosky, and Methonen were aware of the Water Agreement and the need to serve the subdivision lots with water.
- Rick Stone purchased Lot 3 in November 1985; Robert Talmage purchased Lot 4 in October 1991.
- Methonen continued to deny any obligation to supply water and shut off service again in July 1994.
- Stone and Talmage sued for recognition of a right to receive water from the Lot 10 well, an injunction against interference, and damages. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the superior court granted summary judgment to Stone and Talmage based on the 1976 deed’s “subject to” language and the 1985 Acknowledgment.

## Issues

1. Whether the “subject to” clause in the 1976 deed and the subdivision plat showing the well created or gave sufficient notice of an easement requiring Lot 10’s owner to supply water to other subdivision lots.
2. Whether the 1985 “Acknowledgment of Water Well Agreement” could support summary judgment that Methonen had notice or knowledge of a binding community water obligation when he purchased Lot 10.
3. If those documents did not support summary judgment, whether the case required further proceedings to determine if some other doctrine (such as inquiry notice, estoppel, or a nonrecord theory) could bind Methonen to continue water service.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court held that the superior court erred in granting summary judgment for Stone and Talmage on the theory that the 1976 deed, the plat, and the 1985 Acknowledgment established a water easement binding Methonen.
- The court ruled that neither the deed nor the plat identified an easement for a community water system or indicated any obligation of Lot 10’s owner to supply water, so they did not provide actual or constructive (record) notice of such a burden at the time of Methonen’s 1976 purchase.
- The court ruled that statements in the 1985 Acknowledgment about Methonen’s knowledge were unsworn and therefore could not support summary judgment.
- The court reversed the summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings because any obligation to supply water would need to rest on a basis other than the deed, plat, and the unsworn Acknowledgment.

## Legal Principles

- A deed clause stating a conveyance is “subject to easements … of record,” without identifying a specific easement, does not by itself create or clearly disclose a community utility easement burdening the land.
- A recorded plat that merely shows the location of a well, without stating that it serves other lots or that the well lot must provide service, does not give constructive notice of an easement requiring continued water delivery.
- Summary judgment must be supported by admissible evidence; unsworn statements generally cannot establish disputed facts such as a party’s knowledge or notice.
- Enforcing an unrecorded or unclear servitude against a later purchaser requires an adequate notice theory supported by competent evidence; if the record-based theory fails, courts may need to consider other doctrines on a developed factual record.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court reversed summary judgment for Stone and Talmage because the 1976 deed’s generic “subject to” language and the plat’s depiction of a well did not show or give record notice of a community water easement burdening Lot 10, and the 1985 Acknowledgment’s unsworn statements could not prove Methonen’s knowledge on summary judgment; the case was remanded for further proceedings on any alternative basis for requiring continued water service.


Methonen v. Stone, 941 P.2d 1248 (1997)