Case Title: POWDER RIVER RANCH, INC. V. JUAQUIN and DELORES MICHELENA

Citation: 

Docket Number: 04-83

State: wyoming

Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

Date: 2005-01-07T00:00:00Z

Document:
POWDER RIVER RANCH, INC. V. JUAQUIN and DELORES MICHELENA2005 WY 1103 P.3d 876Case Number: 04-83Decided: 01/07/2005
 
 
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2004

 
 
                                                                                                            

 
 
POWDER 
RIVER RANCH, INC.,

 
 
Appellant

(Intervenor/Defendant),

 
 
v.

JUAQUIN 
and DELORES MICHELENA,

 
 
Appellees

(Plaintiffs).

 
 
 
 

Appeal 
from the DistrictCourtofJohnsonCounty

The 
Honorable John Brackley, Judge

 
 

Representing 
Appellant:

            
John M. Daly and Matthew R. Sorenson of Daly Law Associates, P.C., 
Gillette, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Daly.

 
 

Representing 
Appellees:

            
Charles R. Hart and Lynn M. Smith of Davis and Cannon, Sheridan, Wyoming.  
Argument by Mr. Hart.

 
 
 
 
Before 
HILL, C.J., and GOLDEN, KITE, and VOIGT, JJ., and BROOKS, 
DJ.

 
 
KITE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Powder River 
Ranch, Inc. (PRR) appeals from the district court's order granting Juaquin and 
Delores Michelena (Michelenas) a prescriptive easement across its property.   We agree with the district court's 
conclusion that the Michelenas fulfilled the difficult requirements for 
establishing a prescriptive easement in Wyoming, and, consequently, we affirm its 
decision.  

 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
[¶2]      PRR articulates its issue on appeal as 
follows:

 
 
A.        Did 
the district court err in finding a prescriptive easement in favor of the 
plaintiff?

 
 
1.         
Did the court err in finding sufficient proof of adverse use by the 
plaintiffs?

 
 
a.         
The Wyoming approach

b.         
Other states approach

 
 
2.         
Did the district court err in finding the plaintiffs claimed the 
defendant's property under a claim of right or color of 
title?

 
 
3.         
Did the district court err in finding use of a kind as to put the owner 
of the subservient estate on notice [a] claim existed?

 
 
a.         
The "Maycock incident"

b.         
Installation of cattle guard

c.         
Disagreement over placement of a chain on cattle 
guard

 
 
4.         
Did the district court err in finding continuous and uninterrupted use 
for ten years?

 
 
The 
Michelenas offer a more succinct statement of the issue:

 
 
Did the District Court err when it found that the use 
of the Kinney Divide 
Road by the Plaintiffs/Appellees was adverse, under 
claim of right, as opposed to permissive?

 
 
 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      The Michelenas 
and PRR are long-time neighboring landowners in JohnsonCounty.  Lulu Wagoner's father purchased the 
Powder River Ranch in 1956, and Juaquin Michelena's father acquired their family 
ranch property in 1946 or 1947.  
Both ranches can be accessed by the Kinney Divide Road which was 
designated as Johnson County Road #54 in 1890 and crosses Johnson and Campbell 
counties, as well as numerous private lands, including property owned by PRR, 
the Maycock family, and the Hayden family.  
The Powder River flows in a northerly 
direction across the Michelenas' property.  
The Michelenas must either ford the Powder 
River or use the Kinney 
Divide Road to access the eastern part of their 
property by vehicle.  In 1967, 
JohnsonCounty abandoned the road, 
without reserving access rights for affected bordering landowners.          

 
 
[¶4]      Over the years, 
Wyoming weather conditions have often prevented 
the Michelenas from driving across the Powder 
River, requiring them, instead, to use the Kinney Divide Road 
to access the eastern part of their ranch.  
They have also directed their guests and invitees, including feed and 
fuel suppliers, hunters, and sheep shearers, to use the Kinney Divide 
Road.  In 
order to facilitate their use of the Kinney Divide Road, the Michelenas have 
bladed and plowed the roadway and installed cattle guards on PRR property.  The Michelenas did not request or 
receive permission from PRR to use or maintain the Kinney Divide 
Road.   
            

 
 
[¶5]      In 1976, the 
Maycocks placed a chain and padlock across the Kinney Divide Road 
where it crossed their property.  
The Maycocks provided a key to the Michelenas, but Mr. Michelena objected 
to the chain and cut it with bolt cutters in the presence of Billy Maycock and 
two other individuals.  This 
altercation, which became known as the "Maycock incident," prompted a criminal 
action against Mr. Michelena, which was eventually dismissed.  The Maycock incident was widely 
publicized in the region and Ms. Wagoner heard about the incident shortly after 
it occurred.    

 
 
[¶6]      PRR has attempted 
in several instances to limit traffic on the Kinney Divide Road where it crosses its 
property.  In 1987, PRR filed with 
the Johnson County Clerk a document entitled "Notice to the Public Affidavit of 
Limited Access to Property".  In 
November 2001, PRR constructed an earthen berm blocking the road on the boundary 
line between its property and the Hayden property.  The Michelenas talked to Mr. Hayden, and 
he removed the berm.  In January 
2002, the Michelenas contacted Ms.Wagoner and asked her to sign, on behalf of 
PRR, a road easement document to formalize their access rights.   Ms. Wagoner refused to sign the 
document.  Finally, in June 2002, 
PRR permanently blocked the road by installing guardrail posts across the 
roadway.      

 
 
[¶7]      The Michelenas 
filed a petition for establishment of a private road with the Board of County 
Commissioners for JohnsonCounty.  The commissioners denied the Michelenas' 
petition because the Kinney Divide 
Road did not intersect with a public road in 
JohnsonCounty.  The Michelenas then filed a complaint 
against the Johnson County Board of Commissioners, claiming that the county had 
improperly vacated County 
Road #54.  
PRR intervened in the Michelenas' suit against the county, and the 
Michelenas amended their complaint to include a claim for a prescriptive 
easement for the portion of Kinney 
Divide Road that traverses PRR's property.  The claims against the county were 
dismissed, and the district court held a bench trial on the Michelenas' 
prescriptive easement claim.  The 
district court ruled in favor of the Michelenas, and PRR appealed.   

 
 
 
 
DISCUSSION 

 
 
 
 

            
A.        Standard 
of Review

 
 

[¶8]      This 
case was tried to the district court without a jury.  Consequently, we apply our standard for 
reviewing a decision rendered by the district court following a bench 
trial:

 
 
"The 
factual findings of a judge are not entitled to the limited review afforded a 
jury verdict.  While the findings 
are presumptively correct, the appellate court may examine all of the properly 
admissible evidence in the record.  
Due regard is given to the opportunity of the trial judge to assess the credibility of the witnesses, and our review 
does not entail re-weighing disputed evidence.  Findings of fact will not be set aside 
unless they are clearly erroneous.  
A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to 
support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite 
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed."

 
 

Harber 
v. Jensen, 2004 WY 
104, ¶7, 97 P.3d 57, ¶7 (Wyo. 2004) quoting, Life Care Centers of America, Inc. v. 
Dexter, 2003 WY 38, ¶7, 65 P.3d 385, ¶7 (Wyo. 2003).  
Furthermore, in reviewing a trial 
court's findings of fact, 

 
 
"we 
assume that the evidence of the prevailing party below is true and give that 
party every reasonable inference that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from 
it. We do not substitute ourselves for the trial court as a finder of facts; 
instead, we defer to those findings unless they are unsupported by the record or 
erroneous as a matter of law." 

 
 

 Id.  Of course, we review the district 
court's conclusions of law de novo.  Double Eagle Petroleum & Mining 
Corp. v. Questar Exploration & Production Co., 2003 WY 139, ¶6, 78 P.3d 679, ¶6 (Wyo. 2003).

 
 
 
 
B.        
Prescriptive Easement

 
 
[¶9]      A party claiming 
an easement by prescription bears the burden of proving each of four 
elements:  1) proof of adverse use; 
2) claim of right under title or claim of right; 3) use which puts the owner of 
the subservient estate on notice of his claim; and 4) continuous and 
uninterrupted adverse use for at least ten years.  Coleman v. Keith, 6 P.3d 145, 147 (Wyo. 
2000); A.B. Cattle Company v. Forgey 
Ranches, Inc., 943 P.2d 1184, 1188 (Wyo. 1997).  Claimants have a heavy burden to 
establish adverse use in Wyoming, as prescriptive easements are not 
favored.1  Prazma v. Kaehne, 768 P.2d 586, 589 
(Wyo. 
1989).  See also, Yeager v. Forbes, 2003 WY 134, ¶34, 78 P.3d 241, ¶34 (Wyo. 2003).  In fact, 
we generally presume that use of a private roadway by a neighbor is 
permissive.  Shumway v. Tom Sanford, Inc., 637 P.2d 666, 670 (Wyo. 
1981).  "[N]eighborliness and 
accommodation to the needs of a neighbor are landmarks of our western 
life-style."  Id.  

 
 
[¶10]   The presumption of permissive use 
is, however, rebuttable.  Yeager, ¶35.  "To rebut this presumption the claimant 
must introduce evidence of the facts which demonstrate the manner in which the 
hostile and adverse nature of his use was brought home to the owner of the 
adjacent land."  Id.  
The claimant's use must be "inconsistent with the rights of the 
owner, such that the use would entitle the owner to a cause of action against 
the claimant, without permission asked or given."  Coleman, 6 P.3d  at 148.   
See also, A.B. Cattle Co., 943 P.2d  at 1188.  Thus, Wyoming law "requires a manifestation of 
hostile and adverse intent to use a road, even though it will likely result in 
revocation of permission to use the road across the neighbor's land."  Coleman, 6 P.3d  at 
147-48.

 
 
[¶11]   The evidence pertaining to the 
first and third elements of the Michelenas' prescriptive easement claim  
adverse use and notice  tends to overlap.  
In the interests of brevity and clarity, we will consider those elements 
together.  The parties agree that 
there was no agreement, either verbal or written, between them concerning the 
Michelenas' use of the Kinney 
Divide Road.  
Consequently, we look to the parties' actions to determine whether the 
Michelenas' use was adverse or permissive and whether PRR had sufficient notice 
of the Michelenas' claim.  

 
 
[¶12]   
The Michelenas have used the Kinney Divide Road consistently since at 
least 1964.   They did not seek 
or obtain permission from PRR to cross its property.  In addition, the Michelenas also 
directed their guests and invitees, including hunters, suppliers and sheep 
shearers, to use the road.  After 
learning the county had abandoned the road, the Michelenas installed cattle 
guards on the Kinney Divide 
Road, without seeking permission from PRR.  One cattle guard was located directly on 
property belonging to PRR, and the other was located on the boundary between PRR 
and the Hayden properties.  Mr. 
Michelena testified as follows:

 
 
Q.        When did 
you become aware of the fact that the county road had been abandoned by 
JohnsonCounty?

 
 
A.        
1974.

 
 
Q.        How 
did you become aware of that?

 
 
A.        When 
the cattleguards was put in through the Kinney Divide Road in approximately 1958 
and the Powder River Ranch properties, there was a cross fence that wasn't used 
at the time; and in later years they put  built that cross fence and put a gate 
in that road, which the gate was in a hill where if you stopped with a load or 
it was muddy, a little bit slick, you was done; you had to  so, my dad [went] 
to the County Commissioners, assuming that it was still a county road; and 
that's when they informed him the road had been abandoned.

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
Q.        So did the 
county refuse to pay for a cattleguard?

 
 
A.        Yes.  They said they had abandoned it there, 
their maintenance of it.

 
 
Q.        Did you put a 
cattleguard in the road?

 
 
A.        
Yes.

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
Q.        Where did 
you put it, on whose land?

 
 
A.        We put it 
on the Powder River Ranch land.

 
 
Q.        Okay.  Did you get permission from the Powder 
River Ranch to put it on their land?

 
 
A.        
No.

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
 
 
Q.        Did you put any 
more cattleguards in the Kinney 
Divide Road?

 
 
A.        There was 
an oil company 

 
 
Q.        The answer 
is, yes, you did put 

 
 
A.        
Yes.

 
 
Q.        Okay.  And where did you put 
it?

 
 
A.        Boundary 
line, fence line between the Powder River Ranch and the Hayden 
property.

 
 
[¶13]   In addition to installing the 
cattle guards, the Michelenas routinely maintained the Kinney Divide Road, 
including the portion that traversed PRR property.  The Michelenas plowed and bladed the 
roadway when necessary to facilitate travel.  They did not seek or obtain permission 
to repair or maintain the road.  
Although not determinative, maintenance or repair of a road by a 
claimant, without permission, suggests that the use is adverse to the owner's 
interests.  See generally, Koontz v. Superior, 746 P.2d 1264, 1268 
(Wyo. 1987) 
(applying the elements for establishing a prescriptive easement to public 
use).  

 
 
[¶14]   The Michelenas also asserted their 
right to use the road when they cut the chain during the Maycock incident.  PRR argues that the Maycock incident 
does not qualify as evidence that the Michelenas adversely used the road over 
their property because it took place on Maycock property.  Under the circumstances presented here, 
we do not agree with PRR.  Ms. 
Wagoner testified that in order to get to the Maycock property where the Maycock 
incident took place, the Michelenas had to cross PRR property.  She also testified that she heard about 
the Maycock incident "at the time" it happened.  Thus, the Maycock incident amounted to 
an assertion by the Michelenas that they had the right to use the entire 
Kinney Divide 
Road. 

 
 
[¶15]   Arguably, the most telling evidence 
that the Michelenas' use was adverse to PRR's interest is found in PRR's own 
affidavit.  In 1987, Ms. Wagoner, as 
president of PRR, recorded with the Johnson County Clerk's office an affidavit 
entitled:  "Notice to the Public 
Affidavit of Limited Access to Property".  
The affidavit recognized that certain governmental agencies had access 
rights to PRR lands and specifically stated that "[n]o other persons or 
agencies, including members of the public, have such rights of access."  That document did not exempt or, in any 
way, suggest that the Michelenas had permission to use the Kinney Divide Road 
across PRR's property.  Furthermore, 
Ms. Wagoner testified that she intended the affidavit to notify the public and 
Mr. Michelena, specifically, that the Kinney Divide Road across her property was 
her private road.   

 
 
[¶16]   The evidence in the record 
convinces us that PRR did not give the Michelenas permission to use the 
Kinney Divide 
Road across its property.  The district court correctly concluded 
that the Michelenas accomplished the difficult task of proving adverse use in 
Wyoming.   Furthermore, it is clear from the 
record that the Michelenas sufficiently informed PRR of their adverse 
claim.  

 
 

[¶17]   We turn 
next to our consideration of whether the Michelenas had a claim of right to use 
the road.  The element of claim of 
right is often described as "a claim of right under color of title or claim of 
right."  See e.g., A.B. Cattle Co., 943 P.2d  at 1188; Prazma, 768 P.2d  at 589.   The Michelenas started using the 
Kinney Divide 
Road when it was a county road.  In 1974, they discovered that the county 
had abandoned the road.  
Nevertheless, they continued to believe they had the right to use 
it.  Mr. Michelena testified as 
follows:

 
 
Q.        Did you 
think you had the right to use the road after the county abandoned 
it?

 
 
. . 
.

 
 
 
 
A.        
Yes.

 
 
Q.        (By Mr. 
Hart)  Why? 

 
 
A.        Because dad 
bought the place with it, with the county road legal easement in there.  And we felt that that wasn't  we still 
had [a] legal easement, and we used it in that fashion. 

 
 
Thus, 
the Michelenas clearly claimed a continued right to use the Kinney Divide Road, 
even after JohnsonCounty abandoned it.  The district court correctly found that, 
under these facts, the Michelenas had a "reasonable expectation of claim to 
perpetual use of the road."    

 
 
[¶18]   Finally, there is no question that 
the Michelenas' use of the roadway across PRR's property was continuous and 
uninterrupted for a period of at least ten years.  In fact, PRR admits that the Michelenas 
have used the road consistently since at least 1964.  In 1974, the Michelenas installed the 
cattle guards on the road after learning that the county had abandoned the 
road.  The Michelenas and their 
guests and invitees continued to use the road until 2002, when PRR constructed a 
barrier to prevent their further use of the road.  The district court correctly found that 
the Michelenas fulfilled the time requirement for establishment of a 
prescriptive easement.  

 
 
[¶19]   The Michelenas present one of those 
rare circumstances where the facts support a finding of a prescriptive 
easement.  Affirmed.     

 
 

FOOTNOTES

1PRR asks us to consider other states' 
law on prescriptive easements.  Over 
the decades, this Court has developed a rich history of case law on prescriptive 
easements that is uniquely tailored to fit our way of life.  We, therefore, decline PRR's invitation 
to stray from our precedent.