Summary of Rase v. Castle Mountain Ranch, Inc. pg.366
Facts: The plaintiff’s built and improved summer cabins on the defendant’s property. They had original agreements with Tavenner who then sold the ranch and it has now been transferred to Castle Mountain Ranch, Inc. Both the ranch and the cabins have changed hands several times over the years but the relationship has remained amicable more or less. Now, however,
Procedure: District court concluded that the cabin owners had no right to title or interest in the lake property under the doctrine of adverse possession or prescriptive right. Plaintiff appealed.
Issue: What exactly was the nature and extent of any agreement between the cabin owners and Tavenner, individually or collectively, express or implied, for termination of the permission.
Holding: The cabin owners relied on the promise and have rights to the license.
Reasoning: The ranch owners claim that the cabin owners were just on a license and they then revoked the license. Because the cabin owners relied on this license, the ranch owners are estopped from revoking the license. There is a point at which the owners are estopped and it is when they allow the licensee to incur expenses.
Decision: Court grants the cabin owners six months to have the option to receive payment by the ranch owners for the cabins structures and fixtures or they may continue to occupy the cabins for six years.
Easement: the right of one property owner to use a part of another owner’s property.