Lyndes v. Green

325 P.3d 1225 (2014)

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

P owns Section 27 which he leased in 1995 and purchased in 1998. Ds also have land in the same area, abutting Section 27, which they have owned and used as a cattle ranch since 1973. There is a dispute over whether Ds have the right to cross Section 27 to move cattle and to conduct other ranching operations on their adjacent property. Shortly after P purchased the land he learned from the seller Dave Jolly that Ds had 'always crossed Section 27 with their cattle' and conducted other ranching and recreational activities on their own land. P had a confrontation with Ray Hertzler on or near Section 27, accused him of hunting on P's property, and told him to stay out. After P chained and locked the gate on the ranch road leading through Section 27 Ray Hertzler called P to protest the closure, and 'asserted his right to access Section 27.' P then placed a key to the gate under a rock so that Hertzler could open the gate and cross Section 27. Ray Hertzler became incapacitated and Ps began active involvement in Hertzler's ranching operation. Ds had numerous confrontations with P's ranch employees over their asserted right to access Section 27. Ds began cutting P's chains on the gate into Section 27 whenever they encountered them. At one point they installed their own lock on the Section 27 gate but later found it smashed and inoperable. The road was never established as a public road. The portion of the road that traverses P's Section 27 leads only to Ds' property and provides the only reasonable access for moving cattle and other ranching operations. Ds used the road through Section 27 ten to twelve times a year to move cattle to and from their land in the spring and fall, and to access their land for fencing, tending cattle, cutting wood, hunting on their own land, and other activities. Ds did so on a continuous basis since buying their ranch in 1973 and continued doing so after P bought Section 27. The prior landowners were well aware of Ds' long-standing use of the trail to access their property. Ds never asked for or received permission from any landowner. None of the other landowners protested or tried to stop Ds from exercising this right of access. Neighboring landowners testified that they believed that Ds had a right to cross the land because doing so was essential to their ranching operation. The District Court ruled that Ds established the elements of a prescriptive easement before P ever owned Section 27. Ds had used the Section 27 road openly and notoriously for over forty years. Prior landowners never granted any permission nor did Ds ever seek permission to cross Section 27 to access their property. The District Court found that the evidence at trial 'did not establish that P, during his period of ownership of Section 27 ever precluded Ds' use of the access road for a continuous five-year period, or at all.' P appealed.