## Facts

- Norman A. Ricenbaw owned the northwest quarter-section of farmland, and Emil E. Kraus and Josephine H. Kraus owned the adjoining northeast quarter-section in Seward County, Nebraska.
- Surface water naturally drained generally east (slightly northeast) across the Krauses’ land toward the Blue River.
- Ricenbaw’s land contained a small natural depression (“pocket”) near the boundary that collected runoff from roughly 50–60 acres and, when full, naturally overflowed toward the Krauses’ land through a swale.
- In 1901, Ricenbaw’s predecessor installed a subsurface tile drain from the pocket across the Krauses’ land, supplementing the natural drainage.
- After decades of use, the Krauses obstructed the tile line, preventing drainage and prompting the dispute.

## Issues

1. Whether Ricenbaw had an easement appurtenant to maintain and use the tile drain crossing the Krauses’ land based on its long-established, continuous use.
2. Whether Ricenbaw was entitled to injunctive relief barring the Krauses from obstructing the tile drain and from interfering with necessary maintenance and repair.

## Decision

- The court affirmed the decree recognizing an easement appurtenant for the tile drain across the Krauses’ land.
- The court affirmed injunctive relief prohibiting the Krauses from interfering with the tile drain or with Ricenbaw’s necessary repair and maintenance work.
- The court approved limiting the right of entry to what was necessary to restore and maintain function, coupled with Ricenbaw’s duty to restore the surface substantially to its prior condition after work.
- The court reversed the trial court’s award of monetary damages and taxed appellate costs to Ricenbaw.

## Legal Principles

- A long-established, continuous drainage facility serving the dominant parcel and burdening an adjoining parcel may be recognized as an easement appurtenant running with the land.
- A subsurface drain that supplements and follows the course of natural drainage supports recognition of a continuing drainage right rather than a temporary, revocable privilege.
- The holder of a drainage easement has a limited right of entry onto the servient estate to perform necessary maintenance and repairs, subject to a duty to avoid unnecessary injury and to restore the surface after completing work.
- When obstruction of an established easement threatens ongoing impairment, injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy even if monetary damages are not proven or otherwise warranted.

## Conclusion

The court held that Ricenbaw possessed an appurtenant easement to maintain and use the longstanding tile drain across the Krauses’ land and upheld an injunction against interference, but it set aside the damages award while leaving the easement and maintenance framework in place.


Ricenbaw v. Kraus, 61 N.W.2d 350 (Neb. 1953)