Hansen v. Hemphill

                                 205

   This is a nonprecedential memorandum opinion
    pursuant to ORAP 10.30 and may not be cited
         except as provided in ORAP 10.30(1).
    Argued and submitted December 8, 2022, affirmed February 8, 2023


                       Kay R. HANSEN
                   and Richard A. Hansen,
                     Plaintiffs-Appellants,
                                v.
                      Sally HEMPHILL,
                    Defendant-Respondent.
                 Douglas County Circuit Court
                    19CV31661; A175089


  Kathleen E. Johnson, Judge.
  George W. Kelly argued the cause and filed the brief for
appellants.
   Dan G. McKinney argued the cause and filed the brief for
respondent.
  Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, and Powers, Judge, and
Hellman, Judge.
  HELLMAN, J.
  Affirmed.
206                                       Hansen v. Hemphill

        HELLMAN, J.
         Plaintiffs appeal from a judgment that granted
defendant an injunction which prevented plaintiffs from
interfering with defendant’s reasonable access to her property. On appeal, plaintiffs assign as error the trial court’s
ruling that their gates unreasonably interfered with defendant’s easement rights. We affirm.
         Initially, there is no support in the record for plaintiffs’ new assertion at oral argument that the trial court
made a categorical legal ruling that prohibited the shutting or locking of gates. Nor does the court’s ruling prevent
plaintiffs from ever installing or shutting any other gates
on their property, as was asserted. Instead, the trial court
was asked to decide on the particular facts before it whether
the closing and locking of these gates amounted to a substantial interference by plaintiffs of defendant’s use and
enjoyment of her property. Because the parties primarily
sought injunctive relief, “[w]e review the trial court’s legal
conclusions for errors of law, and we are bound by its factual
findings if there is any evidence to support them.” Neff v.
Sandtrax, Inc., 

, 

 (2011); see also
Johnston v. Cornelius, 

, 745 n 11, 

 (2009) (explaining that “the nature of the relief generally determines whether a claim is an action at law or in
equity and thus determines the standard of review”).
         Under that standard, there was ample evidence in
the record for the trial court to have determined that plaintiffs substantially interfered with defendant’s use of the
easement, and to have granted the injunction. Although
plaintiffs took the position that closing and locking the
gates were needed for their security, they did not provide
any testimony to support a conclusion that the gates—which
did not block access to plaintiffs’ driveway, had no fences on
either side of them, and which defendant’s tenants would
be entitled to unlock—could accomplish that goal. Notably,
the security issues plaintiffs identified existed long before
the installation of the gates, which only occurred after the
survey indicated the property belonged to plaintiffs, not
defendant as previously understood. Even though plaintiffs
provided defendant with a key, there was also evidence that
Nonprecedential Memo Op: 

 (2023)          207

defendant, an elderly woman, had to get in and out of her
car at each gate, that shutting and locking the gates caused
inconvenience to defendant’s tenants, and that because the
gates locked with a key, delivery trucks and emergency vehicles could not readily access defendant’s property if needed.
Therefore, the record was legally sufficient for the trial
court to determine on those facts that plaintiffs substantially interfered with defendant’s use and enjoyment of the
easement.
        Affirmed.