## Facts

- A prior landowner granted the United States a scenic easement over Idaho riverfront property to protect scenic and related values and to prevent development that would impair those values.
- The easement prohibited commercial activity but reserved to the landowner and successors the right to use the land for general crop and livestock farming and for limited residential development consistent with state and local regulation.
- Ron and Mary Park bought the property in 1989; the U.S. Forest Service later approved certain modifications and uses, including building changes, horse stalls, a hobby/craft shop, and operation of a bed and breakfast.
- In 1997, the Parks advertised and operated a dog training and boarding business on the property (Wild River Kennels).
- The government asserted the kennel violated the easement’s ban on commercial activity and was not within the reserved right to conduct “livestock farming.”
- The Parks contended their dog breeding, training, and boarding activities qualified as “livestock farming” and were therefore permitted under the reservation.

## Issues

1. Whether the easement’s reservation of “livestock farming” unambiguously excludes dogs, making the Parks’ kennel an impermissible commercial use as a matter of law.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper where “livestock” was undefined and potentially susceptible to multiple reasonable meanings, requiring consideration of extrinsic evidence of intent.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the United States.
- The court held that “livestock,” as used in the easement, is ambiguous and broader than traditional categories (e.g., cattle, sheep, pigs, horses).
- Because the term was not self-defining and could carry multiple legitimate meanings, the court concluded the dispute could not be resolved solely from the text on summary judgment.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings to consider extrinsic evidence bearing on the parties’ intent and the meaning of “livestock” when the easement was created.

## Legal Principles

- An easement is interpreted using contract-like principles; when a material term is undefined and reasonably susceptible to more than one interpretation, the term is ambiguous.
- Courts generally should not resolve ambiguous easement language on summary judgment when intent-dependent factual questions remain.
- When ambiguity exists, extrinsic evidence may be considered to determine the meaning of the easement and the parties’ intent at the time of creation.
- A court may reject categorical exclusions of a disputed meaning (here, that dogs can never be “livestock”) where the governing instrument does not clearly compel that result.

## Conclusion

Because “livestock” in the scenic easement could reasonably be read more than one way, the Ninth Circuit held the government was not entitled to judgment as a matter of law and required further fact development on intent and usage before deciding whether the Parks’ dog-related operations were permitted.


United States v. Park, 536 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2008)