Central Oregon Fabricators, Inc. v. Hudspet

977 P.2d 416 (1999)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Hudspeth Land and Livestock Company deeded 24,000 acres of land to Central Oregon Fabricators, Inc (P). Fred Hudspeth (D) one of the principal owners of the Hudspeth companies asked P if he and his family could continue to hunt on the land. Jack Rhoden, principal owner of P agreed for a payment of $10 and other good and valuable consideration. P then executed a deed granting 11 individuals rights to hunt and fish on the property. The deed did not include a limitation on the duration but provided instead that the conveyance was to have and to hold said rights granted unto grantees their heirs and assigns, and personal guests while accompanying the grantees. After acquiring the property, P constructed fences and trenches around the perimeter and put locked gates on all the roads through the property and employed guards during hunting season. Rhoden also acquired a 1/2 interest in the property personally subject to Ds and other grantees' rights under the 1964 hunting deed. Rhoden began a hunting recreation guide service with fees of up to $5,000 per person for a five-day guided hunting trip. From 1964 -1997 Ds never exercised their rights to hunt and fish the property. Alan Hudspeth attempted to exercise rights, but after hearing that several other paying hunters would be on the property, Alan decided not to exercise his rights. Eventually, one of the Ds was told that he could not stay and hunt on the land. D then asked for a written explanation but never got one. D asked for keys to the locked gates but was denied. Ps then filed a quiet title action alleging that Ds abandoned their rights under the 1964 deed when they learned that Ds were planning a commercial hunting service. The trial court ruled that Ds' rights were extinguished by adverse possession and that their non-use of the property since 1964 and the failure to object to P's fencing, gating and patrolling the land and excluding uninvited guests evinced an abandonment of the property by no later than 1988. D appealed.