Pistol Resources, LLC v. McNeely

The material terms of an easement agreement are explicitly "to obtain the right to use the existing roads and to construct and use roads across lands of the other for forest management purposes and for the purpose of transporting logs and other forest products, agricultural products and minerals" and desired to "grant, one to the other, such rights." Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Ore. App. 167, 174, 473 P3d 1113, rev den, 367 Ore. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020).

Defendant, McNeely, appealed a grant of declaratory relief relating to an easement agreement. McNeely assigned error to the trial court’s determination that, although Plaintiff, Pistol Resources (“Pistol”), had breached the easement agreement, that breach was immaterial. McNeeley argued that Pistol had the “obligation to repair the … road and bridge, and that the facts reflect that [Pistol] failed to maintain the Subject Road [and bridge] in a condition suitable for log hauling.” Pistol argued that the easement agreement did not require Pistol to “maintain its road or bridge for use by” the McNeelys. The recitals in the easement agreement indicate that the agreement was entered into because the parties desired "to obtain the right to use the existing roads and to construct and use roads across lands of the other for forest management purposes and for the purpose of transporting logs and other forest products, agricultural products and minerals" and desired to "grant, one to the other, such rights." Sander v. Nicholson, 306 Ore. App. 167, 174, 473 P3d 1113, rev den, 367 Ore. 290, 476 P.3d 1255 (2020). Because the payment of fees was not a material term in the agreement, the Court determined that Pistol did not commit a material breach, and the agreement was therefore valid. Affirmed.