Moore v. Grabavoy

── Moore v. Grabavoy ── Court: Court of Appeals of Oregon Date: May 13, 2026 Author: Kamins Category: General 540 May 13, 2026 No. 407 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Hunter MOORE and Michelle Moore, husband and wife, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Ned GRABAVOY and Monica Grabavoy, husband and wife, Defendants-Respondents. Clackamas County Circuit Court 24CV20416; A186755 Robert T. Manicke, Judge. Argued and submitted April 7, 2026. Zack P. Mittge argued the cause for appellants. Also on the briefs were Frank C. Gibson and Hutchinson Cox. David A. Rabbino argued the cause for respondents. Also on the brief were Robyn L. Stein, David H. Bowser, and Jordan Ramis, PC. Before Tookey, Presiding Judge, Kamins, Judge, and Jacquot, Judge. KAMINS, J. Affirmed. Cite as 349 Or App 540 (2026) 541 KAMINS, J. In this easement dispute between neighbors, plain- tiffs appeal a declaratory general judgment following the grant of summary judgment to defendants. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that an easement was invalid as to their home and their neighbor’s home because at the time of the ease- ment’s recording, the parcels of land were held by a common owner and the subsequent conveyance did not create a valid easement. The parties both moved for summary judgment. The court granted defendants’ motion, reasoning that a valid express easement was created at the time plaintiffs bought their home and entered a declaratory judgment in favor of defendants. On appeal, plaintiffs assign error to the trial court’s order granting defendants’ motion for summary judgment, arguing that the trial court erred in declaring the existence of a valid easement. We conclude that the trial court did not err because the express language of the easement recording and subsequent conveyance, as well as the surrounding circumstances, indicate that the par- ties intended the creation of an easement. Accordingly, we affirm. Because the facts are not disputed, we review the trial court’s ruling on the cross-motions for summary judg- ment for errors of law to determine whether either party is entitled to prevail as a matter of law. ORCP 47 C; Lockner v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Oregon, 333 Or App 27, 28, 551 P3d 975, rev den, 373 Or 154 (2024). Between November 2015 and May 2016, a developer named Blue Palouse Properties, LLC purchased two pieces of adjacent real property on Upper Drive in Lake Oswego. The first property, located at 4176 Upper Drive (property A) is a flag pole lot with driveway running 165 feet to connect the home with the street. The second property, located at 4200 Upper Drive (property B), is narrower than the widest part of property A. 542 Moore v. Grabavoy As part of its development of the properties, Blue Palouse demolished the existing home on property B.1 Blue Palouse then built a three-car garage on property B and connected it, via a paved driveway, to the driveway on property A. By the time Blue Palouse finished its work, property B’s sole paved entry and exit point was the driveway on property A. In May 2016, in preparation for selling its proper- ties, Blue Palouse drafted, executed, and recorded a doc- ument titled “Easement Agreement.” That document pur- ported to grant the owner, and all future owners, of property B an express easement over all of property A’s driveway— not just the portion used to connect it to property B—for “ingress, egress, utilities, and storm water management,” in perpetuity. On the document, Blue Palouse listed itself as both the “Grantor” and “Grantee” of the easement. Blue Palouse’s stated intention in creating and recording the doc- ument was to create an express easement over property A, for the benefit of property B.2 The document included the following illustration of the eas