Title: A.B. Cattle Co. v. Forgey Ranches, Inc.

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

A.B. Cattle Co. v. Forgey Ranches, Inc.1997 WY 102943 P.2d 1184Case Number: 97-8Decided: 08/12/1997Supreme Court of Wyoming

A.B. CATTLE COMPANY, a Wyoming 
corporation,  

Appellant(Defendant), 

 

v. 

 

FORGEY RANCHES, INC.,  

Appellee(Plaintiff).

 

Appeal 
from District Court, Natrona County 

The 
Honorable Dan Spangler, Judge

 

Representing 
Appellant: 

Barry G. 
Williams and Houston G. Williams of Williams, Porter, Day & Neville, P.C., 
Casper.

 Representing 
Appellee: 

B.J. Baker 
and Harry B. Durham, III, of Brown, Drew, Massey & Sullivan, 
Casper..

 

Before 
TAYLOR, C.J., and THOMAS, MACY, GOLDEN and LEHMAN, 
JJ.

GOLDEN, Justice. 

[¶1]      Appellant A.B. 
Cattle Company appeals from the bench trial verdict and judgment awarding Forgey 
Ranches, Inc. a prescriptive easement of a road located on A.B. Cattle Company's 
land.

 

[¶2]      We reverse and 
remand with instructions that judgment be entered for A.B. Cattle 
Company.

 

ISSUES

 

[¶3]      A.B. Cattle 
Company presents these issues for our review:

 

A. Did the trial court err based upon its findings of 
fact, as stated in its decision letter and judgment, in its legal conclusion 
that the Plaintiff's (Appellee's) predecessors in title, the Groves', use of the 
right of way was hostile and adverse and that the evidence presented was 
sufficient to overcome the presumption of permissive use?

 

B. Did the trial court err in finding that 
Plaintiff's predecessors' use of the right of way was adverse and hostile to the 
owners of the "Servient Estate" for any continuous prescriptive ten (10) year 
period?

 

[¶4]      Forgey Ranches 
does not present a statement of the issues.

 

FACTS

 

[¶5]      No transcript of 
the trial was made. In accordance with WYO. R.APP. P. 3.03, the district court 
settled the record for appeal to be the findings of fact of the judgment and 
order, the defendant's statement of the evidence, the deposition of Art 
Boatright, and the plaintiff's objections to defendant's statement of the 
evidence.

 

[¶6]      In its judgment 
and order, the district court specifically found as 
follows:

 

1. In 1930, Mr. and Mrs. George Grove (the "Groves") 
occupied land in Natrona County, Wyoming, under the Homestead Act and eventually 
acquired title. 

2. The Groves reach their property by a road which 
crossed land now owned by the defendant.

3. The Groves used this road for approximately 60 
years.

4. The Groves never asked nor obtained permission 
from anyone.

5. The Groves believed that they had the right to use 
the road.

6. The Groves mistakenly believed that a portion of 
the road was on their land.

7. The Groves made some improvements on this part of 
the road.

8. Until 1942, the Groves did not know the owners of 
the property they were crossing.

 

[¶7]      The district 
court concluded as follows:

 

1. Plaintiff's predecessors in interest, the Groves', 
use of the right of way was adverse and hostile to the rights of the owners, 
under claim of right, such as to put the owner of the servient estate on 
notice.

2. The adverse use was continuous and uninterrupted 
for a period in excess of ten (10) years.

3. The evidence is sufficient to overcome the 
presumption that use of an easement is permissive.

4. Plaintiff acquired the prescriptive easement which 
the Groves had established.

5. Plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought in the 
amended complaint.

 

[¶8]      The district 
court order ruled that Forgey Ranches, Inc. is the owner of a permanent easement 
and right-of-way over and across the property of A.B. Cattle Company. For 
appeal, the following facts were also included in the settled statement of 
evidence:

 

[¶9]      Iona Grove had 
been a resident of Natrona County for over 60 years and had married George Grove 
in 1930. At the time they were married, they lived in an apartment in Casper, 
Wyoming. After they were married in 1930, they moved a shack on to the property 
known in this lawsuit as the George Grove property, and proceeded to homestead 
that property. They received their homestead patent on May 2, 1935. At the time, 
they did not know who owned the property now owned by A.B. Cattle Company. The 
road as it currently exists did not exist at the time they homesteaded the 
property. Their road access to their homestead was in a different location from 
the present road. The Bureau of Reclamation, in connection with the Kendrick 
Project, improved the road in its current location in approximately 1939-1940. 
George Grove's brother, Joe, purchased the property now owned by A.B. Cattle 
Company on May 8, 1942. There was a good relationship between George Grove and 
Joe Grove at all times; the two had been in business together. A.B. Cattle 
Company and Art Boatright were good neighbors. The Groves never asked permission 
to use the road from either the original owner of the property, or from Joe 
Grove or A.B. Cattle Company.

 

[¶10]   A.B. Cattle Company also claims 
that the following are relevant facts from the deposition of Art 
Boatright:

 

[¶11]   There was no regular travel on the 
road except Boatrights and George Grove. A right-of-way was never discussed with 
George Grove, as he was a good neighbor and friend of Boatright. Boatright 
testified that there was never a necessity for him to give Iona and George Grove 
permission to use the right-of-way. A.B. Cattle Company plowed the roadway right 
up to the Groves house so they could get back and forth. If the Groves wanted to 
come on to A.B. Cattle Company's pasture, they could as the gate was never 
closed. Mr. Boatright said he couldn't and wouldn't stop the Groves from using 
the road. Mr. Boatright testified he did not want Forgey's personnel using the 
road, and he stopped them.

 

[¶12]     Forgey's objections to 
the statement of the evidence and which the court ordered to be part of the 
settled record are these:

 

[¶13]   Mr. and Mrs. Grove moved onto and 
began homesteading the property which is now owned by Forgey Ranches, Inc. in 
1930. Mrs. Grove lived on the property that she and her husband homesteaded 
continuously from 1930 until she sold the property to Forgey Ranches, Inc. in 
1994. During all that period of time, which was more than sixty years, she, her 
husband, until he died, and all their visitors used roads crossing the land now 
owned by A.B. Cattle Company to gain access to their homestead. At the time the 
Groves moved onto their homestead in 1930, they did not know who owned the land 
which is presently owned by A.B. Cattle Company. At that time the land was 
occupied and used by a sheep rancher by the name of McCarthey, and the only 
access to their homestead was over an unimproved road or trail which crossed the 
land now owned by A.B. Cattle Company. When Mr. McCarthey learned that Mrs. 
Grove and her husband were homesteading their property he became very 
belligerent with them and told them he did not want them to homestead or to use 
the road to get to their land. In spite of the threats of Mr. McCarthey, the 
Groves continued to use the road to access their land. Neither Mr. McCarthey nor 
anyone else ever took any legal action to prevent them from using the 
road.

 

[¶14]   The Groves continued using the 
original access road across the lands now owned by A.B. Cattle Company until the 
Bureau of Reclamation constructed a new improved road in connection with an 
irrigation ditch. This road also crossed the property now owned by A.B. Cattle 
Company. Mrs. Grove's best recollection was this road was constructed some time 
around 1939. At the time this road was built, Mrs. Grove still did not know who 
owned the property which is presently owned by A.B. Cattle Company. She and her 
husband believed that they had a right to use the new road because it had been 
built by the United States Government. At the time the new road was built, Mr. 
and Mrs. Grove discontinued using the old road and always used the new road 
along the ditch. This continued until she sold the place to the 
Forgeys.

 

[¶15]   George Grove's brother, Joe Grove, 
purchased the property now owned by A.B. Cattle Company in 1942. George and Iona 
Grove were using the existing road under a claim of right prior to the time that 
Joe Grove purchased the land. They never asked or received permission from Joe 
Grove to use the road. After Joe Grove sold his land to A.B. Cattle Company in 
1969, the Groves continued to use the road across the land as a matter of right. 
They never asked A.B. Cattle Company for permission to use the land. A.B. Cattle 
Company never gave them permission to use the road over the A.B. Cattle Company 
land. The Groves and Art Boatright were good neighbors and got along, but Art 
Boatright and his employees on some occasions did attempt to stop visitors to 
the Groves from using the road. The Grove visitors always asserted their right 
to use the road and continued to use it without any legal challenge from Art 
Boatright. Rebecca Lincoln testified that she could distinctly recall two 
specific occasions when she was stopped by Art Boatright or his employee when 
she was using the road. One time was when she was about 14 or 15 years old and 
the other was in 1987. She testified that on both occasions she told Art 
Boatright and the other employee of A.B. Cattle Company that she was using the 
road as an invitee of George and Iona Grove, and Art Boatright and A.B. Cattle 
Company made no further attempt to stop her from using the 
road.

 

[¶16]   Forgey believes the following 
additional facts from the deposition of Art Boatright are relevant. Art 
Boatright has always been the president of A.B. Cattle Company. At the time A.B. 
Cattle Company purchased the land it presently owns, over which the easement 
passes, all the stock in the company was owned by Art Boatright. Art Boatright 
inspected the property prior to the time he bought it. At the time Art Boatright 
purchased the land he noticed the right-of-way used by the Groves. George Grove 
was using the right-of-way road at the time Art Boatright purchased the 
property. The right-of-way was never brought up as a subject of discussion at 
the time of the closing of the A.B. Cattle Company purchase of the land. At that 
time Art Boatright knew that George and Iona Grove owned the adjoining land and 
that they lived on the land.

 

[¶17]   Art Boatright observed that George 
and Iona Margaret Grove used the right-of-way to their place and had been using 
the right-of-way at the time he purchased the property. He testified that he 
never stopped George or Iona Margaret Grove from using the right-of-way. He 
stated specifically that he couldn't and wouldn't stop them from using the 
right-of-way. He finally testified that he never gave George Grove or Iona Grove 
permission to use the right-of-way. He said there was no necessity to do 
so.

 

DISCUSSION

 

Standard of Review

 

[¶18]   The determination of the facts 
which lead to either the presumption of adverse and hostile use or the 
presumption of permission are within the prerogative of the trial court. Shumway v. Tom Sanford, Inc., 637 P.2d 666, 670 (Wyo. 1981). Applying our traditional standard of review to determine 
whether sufficient evidence supported the district court's factual findings, we 
assume that the evidence in favor of the successful party is true, leave out of 
consideration entirely the conflicting evidence presented by the unsuccessful 
party, and give the evidence of the successful party every favorable inference 
that may reasonably and fairly be drawn from it. Furthermore, a reviewing court 
cannot substitute its judgment of the facts for that of the trial court unless 
the trial court's judgment is clearly erroneous or contrary to the great weight 
of the evidence. Estate of McCormick, 
926 P.2d 360, 362 (Wyo. 1996).

 

Prescriptive Easement

 

[¶19]   A prescriptive easement cannot be 
acquired without proof of adverse use; claim of right under color of title or 
claim of right; use of a kind as to put the owner of the subservient estate on 
notice of the claim; and use which is continuous and uninterrupted adverse use 
for at least ten years. Prazma v. 
Kaehne, 768 P.2d 586, 589 (Wyo. 1989); see also Caribou Four Corners, Inc. v. 
Chapple-Hawkes, Inc., 643 P.2d 468, 471 (Wyo. 1982). The claimant bears the 
burden of proving these four elements. Prazma, 768 P.2d  at 
589.

 

[¶20]   In Wyoming,

a 
landowner claiming an easement by prescription in an unimproved road crossing 
the lands of his neighbor must assume the burden of establishing that his 
intention to make a hostile use of the road adverse to the interests of his 
neighbor was brought home to the neighbor in a clear and unequivocal way. His 
subjective intent will not be considered material, and while it is likely true 
that a manifestation of his hostile and adverse intent will result in revocation 
of permission to use the road across the neighbor's land, this is the best 
posture for the law to assume in the State of Wyoming. The claimant cannot rely 
upon a presumption [of hostile and adverse use] arising out of the open, 
notorious, continuous and uninterrupted use for the prescriptive period, but in 
the absence of more that use will be presumed to have been with permission. 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.

Weiss v. Pedersen, 933 P.2d 495, 501 (Wyo. 1997) (quoting Shumway, 637 P.2d at 
670).

 

[¶21]   A.B. Cattle Company contends that 
Forgey did not present facts demonstrating hostile and adverse use for the 
prescriptive period and the district court did not make a specific finding of 
any facts establishing hostile and adverse use. It further argues that the 
district court's legal conclusion that Groves' use was adverse is against the 
great weight of the evidence.

 

[¶22]   Adverse or hostile use is use 
inconsistent with the rights of the owner, without permission asked or given, 
use such as would entitle the owner to a cause of action against the intruder. 
Koontz v. Town of Superior, 746 P.2d 1264, 1268 (Wyo. 1987). Viewed in the light most favorable to Forgey, the record 
shows that two roads were used by the Groves. They used the first road from 1930 
until 1939 when they began using the road built by the federal government. The 
Groves believed they had a right to use the second road because it was built by 
the federal government, believed they owned some of the land the road was on, 
and made improvements on it. In 1942, George Grove's brother, Joe, became the 
owner of the land now owned by A.B. Cattle Company, and the Groves continued to 
use the road crossing his land. In 1969, A.B. Cattle Company, the stock of which 
is owned by Art Boatright, purchased the land, and the Groves continued to use 
the land.

 

[¶23]   Forgey contends that the Groves' 
use of the first road was a hostile entry because McCarthy opposed their use. 
There is only evidence that McCarthy was an occupier of the land, not an owner, 
and the Groves did not use the first road for the prescriptive period. The road 
at issue in this case is the second road, and Forgey contends that because 
Groves continuously used the second road without permission from Joe Grove and 
Boatright, their hostile and adverse intent was demonstrated. A similar argument 
was presented in Weiss, and we ruled that continuous use alone does not rebut 
the presumption that the claimant had the landowner's permission. Weiss, 933 P.2d  at 501. Although Groves 
used the road first, nothing in the record suggests that their use after Joe 
Grove also began using the road as a means of accessing his property was 
adverse; and because neither Joe Grove nor Boatright ever refused the Groves use 
of the road, we must conclude that the use was permissive. Prazma, 768 P.2d  at 
589.

 

[¶24]   We agree with A.B. Cattle Company 
that the great weight of the evidence which does not conflict with evidence in 
favor of Forgey is against finding that the use was adverse. As the brother and 
business partner of George Grove, Joe Grove's act in not stopping the Groves 
from using the road supports the presumption of permissive use. Boatright's 
longtime friendship with the Groves and his acts, such as plowing the road up to 
the Groves property in order for the Groves to be able to use the road and 
allowing the Groves' guests to use the road, support the presumption of 
permissive use. In 1994, Mrs. Grove sold her property to Forgey. Boatright did 
not want Forgey personnel using the road; he stopped them, and Forgey filed 
suit. Boatright's acts towards Forgey also support the presumption that the 
Groves permissively used the road.

 

[¶25]   Prescriptive rights and easements 
are not favored in the law, and neighborliness and accommodation to the needs of 
a neighbor are landmarks of our western lifestyle. Shumway, 637 P.2d  at 670. The 
facts, even in the light most favorable to Forgey, do not present any evidence 
which demonstrates the manner in which the Groves manifested to Joe Grove or 
Boatright the hostile and adverse nature of their use of the road. Id. The facts 
describe permissive use to accommodate a neighbor.

 

[¶26]   We reverse the decision of the 
district court and remand with instructions to enter judgment for A.B. Cattle 
Company.