RENDERED: AUGUST 25, 2023; 10:00 A.M.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky

Court of Appeals

NO. 2022-CA-0652-MR

HAL SNOWDEN, JR., D/B/A 

ROSEGLADE FARM APPELLANT 

v. 

APPEAL FROM JESSAMINE CIRCUIT COURT

HONORABLE C. HUNTER DAUGHERTY, JUDGE

ACTION NO. 17-CI-00158 

CITY OF WILMORE, KENTUCKY; 

BRIAN DENGER, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF 

WILMORE JOINT PLANNING 

COMMISSION; DAVE CARLSTEDT, 

IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE 

COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE 

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION; 

DAVID RIEL, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY 

COUNCIL; DENNIS ADAMS, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER 

OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –

CITY OF WILMORE JOINT 

PLANNING COMMISSION; DON 

COLLIVER, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF 

WILMORE JOINT PLANNING 
-2-

COMMISSION; ERIC ZABILK, IN 

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE 

COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE 

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION; 

HAROLD RAINWATER, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS A 

MEMBER OF THE WILMORE, 

KENTUCKY, CITY COUNCIL; 

HAROLD RAINWATER, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MAYOR 

OF THE CITY OF WILMORE, 

KENTUCKY; JAMES MCKINNEY, IN 

HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

MEMBER OF THE JESSAMINE 

COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE 

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION; 

JANE BALL, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF 

WILMORE JOINT PLANNING 

COMMISSION; JEFF BAIER, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER 

OF THE WILMORE, KENTUCKY, 

CITY COUNCIL; JESSAMINE 

COUNTY – CITY OF WILMORE 

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION; 

JIM BRUMFIELD, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY 

COUNCIL; JOHN OSBORNE, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER 

OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –

CITY OF WILMORE JOINT 

PLANNING COMMISSION; KIM 

DEYER, IN HER OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

WILMORE, KENTUCKY, CITY 

COUNCIL; LEONARD FITCH, IN HIS 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER 
-3-

OF THE WILMORE, KENTUCKY, 

CITY COUNCIL; LYNN COOPER, IN 

HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS 

MEMBER OF THE WILMORE, 

KENTUCKY, CITY COUNCIL; 

MARY JO MORROW, IN HER 

OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS MEMBER

OF THE JESSAMINE COUNTY –

CITY OF WILMORE JOINT 

PLANNING COMMISSION; AND 

PETER BEATY, IN HIS OFFICIAL 

CAPACITY AS MEMBER OF THE 

JESSAMINE COUNTY – CITY OF 

WILMORE JOINT PLANNING 

COMMISSION APPELLEES 

OPINION

AFFIRMING

**   **  **

BEFORE: DIXON, GOODWINE, AND KAREM, JUDGES.

GOODWINE, JUDGE: Hal Snowden, Jr. (“Snowden”) appeals from orders of the 

Jessamine Circuit Court entered on October 28, 2018, November 9, 2018, August 

9, 2019, July 20, 2020, September 24, 2020, May 12, 2021, March 22, 2022, and 

April 18, 2022. After careful review, we find no error and affirm.

BACKGROUND

This matter, litigated for nearly three decades, concerns the location 

and size of a conservation easement on Snowden’s property, Roseglade Farm, in 

Wilmore, Kentucky. The history of this matter includes a 2018 appeal in this 
-4-

action and two prior appeals to this Court in related actions concerning the 

development of Roseglade Farm.

1

In the 2018 appeal, this Court summarized the 

history of this matter as follows:

Snowden owns a 175-acre parcel of land referred 

to as Roseglade Farm. The northeast portion of the tract 

lies near the “Y” intersection of U.S. Highway 68 and 

Kentucky Highway 29 in Jessamine County. . . .

In 1997, Snowden submitted an application for a 

zone change for the farm from agricultural to residential. 

A review of the several public hearings conducted as part 

of the zoning process indicates that the matter was hotly 

contested. Members of the public were most concerned 

that greenspace would be lost across that part of 

Roseglade [F]arm lying between two historic homes on 

the northern part of the farm near the Y-intersection of 

U.S. Highway 68 and Kentucky 29. However, 

Snowden’s preliminary plan for the development of the 

farm explicitly depicted greenspace at this location, 

setting aside slightly more than 100 acres (identified as 

the East Field Permanent Greenspace Area) for continued 

agricultural uses. 

In December 1997, the Wilmore City Council 

approved a zone change of the farm from A-1 to R-5 as 

consistent with the Wilmore Comprehensive Plan. “R-5”

is designated a rural transition zone. The local zoning 

ordinance provides that those areas within the City of 

Wilmore zoned as R-5 should function as transition areas 

between the smaller urban lots found in the Wilmore 

community and the five (5) – acre minimum density lots 

found in the agricultural areas of surrounding Jessamine 

County. In R-5 zones, both agricultural and residential 

1

See Kopser, et al. v. City of Wilmore, No. 2001-CA-000232-MR (Ky. App. Mar. 1, 2002); see 

also Snowden v. City of Wilmore, 412 S.W.3d 195 (Ky. App. 2013); see also City of Wilmore v. 

Snowden, No. 2017-CA-001345-MR, 2018 WL 4264921 (Ky. App. Sep. 7, 2018).
-5-

development are permitted. According to the ordinance, 

this zone “shall provide a permanent green space/buffer 

area to the growing areas of Wilmore and allow a

compatible transition into the active agricultural areas of 

the surrounding County.” As a condition to development 

in this zone, “an undeveloped portion of the parent 

tract . . . will remain in permanent green space.”

The town council found that “the proposed zone 

change and development plan are in agreement with the 

comprehensive plan as they meet all the criteria of the 

requirements of an R-5 zoning classification, the goals 

and objectives and the Wilmore Community Plan.” It 

also found that there “is a present need for residential 

property as proposed by the applicant. His property 

provides for and protects a substantial green space along 

the two abutting highways [the Y-intersection at U.S. 

Highway 68 and Kentucky Highway 29].”

Snowden, 2018 WL 4264921, at *1. In December 1998, Snowden dedicated 

approximately 100 acres of the farm to the City of Wilmore (“the City”) as a 

conservation easement. Id. The deed of conservation easement stated, in part,

[t]he property includes a designated area of permanent 

greenspace, as shown on Exhibit “B” and described in 

Exhibit “C” attached hereto and incorporated herein by 

this reference, and such area shall be maintained 

perpetually subject to the terms and restrictions of this 

Conservation Easement[.]

Id. at *2.2 The deed further described the conservation easement as containing 

“open space of approximately 100 acres of farmland, pastures, and grassland[.]” 

Id. The easement consisted of “approximately 4,100 feet of frontage along U.S. 

2 Neither Exhibit B nor C was attached to the deed, nor did it appear from the record that either 

had ever been prepared. 
-6-

Highway 68 . . . and approximately 3,000 feet of frontage along Kentucky 

Highway 29[.] . . . Furthermore, the [conservation easement] is specifically located 

at the beginning of the Kentucky Highway 29 scenic entry corridor to the City of 

Wilmore[.]” Id. The deed also describes the Betty Bryan House and Ashbrook 

House as “immediately adjacent” to the easement. Id. The deed states that “the 

remaining balance” of the property, meaning Roseglade Farm, would be rezoned to 

R-5 to allow for development. Id. at *3. 

In 2016, Snowden applied again to the planning 

commission for a new consideration of a plan to develop 

Roseglade Farm into 174 residential lots of 

approximately .25 acres each. This plan for the property 

reconfigured the preliminary development plan prepared 

in August 1997 (and approved in December 1997) by 

inverting the proposed residential area as platted and the

greenspace area referred to in the conservation easement. 

Under Snowden’s amended plan, the residential area 

would now be located on the northeast portion of the 

farm near the Y-intersection of U.S. Highway 68 and 

Kentucky 29. The revised preliminary plat and amended 

development plan indicated that Snowden would grant to 

the City of Wilmore a substitute conservation easement 

to include the newly envisioned permanent greenspace 

areas identified on the revised preliminary plat.

Because the property that Snowden proposed to 

develop encompassed the conservation easement, the 

planning commission advised him in writing that it 

would not approve the amended development plan absent 

the agreement of the town council to release or modify 

the easement recorded in January 1999. Snowden 

represented to the town council that the 1999 

conservation easement “will remain totally intact and 

valid until such time that a new easement for the land 
-7-

residual may be established.” Nevertheless, through a 

resolution adopted on January 17, 2017, the town council 

denied Snowden’s request to modify or release the 1999 

conservation easement. Snowden sought to void any 

arguable binding effect of the 1999 conservation/

agreement.

On March 9, 2017, Snowden filed a complaint for 

declaratory relief in the Jessamine Circuit Court. 

Snowden contended that he had a continuing right to 

modify and amend his preliminary development plan for 

Roseglade Farm subject only to the rules, regulations, 

and processes of the planning commission and without

regard for the conservation easement recorded in 1999. 

Snowden argued that the portion of the farm that the 

parties intended to subject to the conservation easement 

“would and could only be identified with specificity at a 

future date when the [planning commission] approved

‘final construction plans.’” He contended that as a 

consequence, the easement “obviously fails to 

sufficiently identify the dimensions and boundaries of the 

property” and that the physical location of the property 

that it purported to encumber could not be located with 

reasonable certainty. In essence, Snowden sought to void 

any binding effect or continuity of his original 

conservation easement. The City of Wilmore and 

members of the town council denied that Snowden was 

entitled to the relief he sought.

Id. at *4. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of Snowden, 

finding the conservation easement facially void and unenforceable because the 

description of the encumbered property was inadequate. Id. at *5. The City of 

Wilmore appealed. 
-8-

This Court reversed the summary judgment of the circuit court, 

holding the description was adequate under KRS3 Chapter 382, the Uniform 

Conservation Easement Act. Snowden , 2018 WL 4264921, at *5. Specifically, 

this Court determined

[d]espite the absence of Exhibits B and C identified in 

the written easement at the center of this dispute, the 

dimensions and boundaries of the conservation easement 

can be physically located with reasonable certainty. 

Roseglade Farm is bounded by U.S. Highway 68 to the 

north and Kentucky Highway 29 to the southeast. These 

highways intersect at a point just northeast of the farm. 

The description of the encumbered property indicates that 

it forms a quadrilateral. The location of two of its sides 

are defined by the location of the two highways 

bordering the farm; the third side is defined by its 

intersection with the first two (and is more particularly 

described as that part of the farm bordering the existing 

commercial property located at the Y-intersection lying 

to the northeast); the fourth is, therefore, readily 

ascertainable. Moreover, the [conservation easement] is 

described as consisting of approximately 100 acres lying 

between the Betty Bryan House and the Ashbrook House 

and “located at the beginning of the Kentucky Highway

29 scenic entry corridor to the City of Wilmore.”

Finally, the easement provides that its objective is 

to comply with the requirements of the R-5 zone calling 

for a transition area between the City of Wilmore lying to 

the southwest of the farm and the agricultural areas of 

Jessamine County lying to its west, north, and south. The 

dimensions and boundaries of the conservation easement 

are fairly delineated. Its situs is clear. Consequently, we 

agree with the [City of Wilmore] that the easement is not 

3 Kentucky Revised Statutes.
-9-

void as a matter of law but that it is instead susceptible of 

enforcement.

Id.

After the 2018 appeal, Snowden moved for a declaration of rights, 

requesting the circuit court determine the location and boundaries of the 

conservation easement. The circuit court denied Snowden’s motion on October 26, 

2018. Snowden timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate the order. On November 

9, 2018, the circuit court granted Snowden’s motion to the extent that it amended

the order to remove language making the October 26, 2018 order final and 

appealable. Over the City’s objection, the circuit court also allowed Snowden to 

amend his complaint to include claims of legislative invalidity, res judicata, failure 

of a condition subsequent, mutual mistake, integration of the agreement, and 

spoliation of evidence. 

Snowden then moved for partial summary judgment on his claim that 

the conservation easement was legislatively invalid, making it nonbinding and 

unenforceable. On July 20, 2020, the circuit court denied his motion, finding that 

under KRS 83A.010, a conservation easement is not an “ordinance.” Record (“R”) 

at 515.4 Snowden again timely moved to vacate the court’s order. On September 

24, 2020, the court denied the motion but informed the parties it would “consider 

4 Citations to the record in this case are to volumes titled “After 1st Appeal.”
-10-

whether a final plat is required to convey [a] valid easement and whether the law of 

the case or any other defense, precludes [Snowden] from raising that issue at this 

time.” R. at 617.

After briefing by the parties, the circuit court entered an interlocutory 

order on May 12, 2021, resolving those issues. The court found that the law of the 

case doctrine precluded any argument by Snowden regarding the adequacy of the 

description of the conservation easement, including his argument that a final plat is 

required for an easement to be valid. The court then scheduled a hearing to 

determine the exact location of the easement consistent with the 2018 opinion of 

this Court. 

At the hearing, the parties presented evidence on the location of the

easement, primarily focusing on the disputed fourth boundary of the quadrilateral

referenced in the 2018 opinion. Snowden argued the boundary was the sightline 

between the Betty Bryan House and Ashbrook House. This would make the 

easement approximately 40 acres in total. Snowden claimed the City, both in 

writing and orally, made judicial admissions asserting the boundary was the 

sightline between the two homes. The City presented testimony from the mayor of 

the City and the chairman of the Jessamine County/City of Wilmore Joint Planning 

Commission. It argued the court should rely on Snowden’s development plan, 

presented to the city council in support of his request for the change in zoning in 
-11-

1998, to determine the location of the easement. The development plan depicts 

“permanent greenspace” of approximately 105 acres.

In its March 22, 2022 judgment, the circuit court held, based on the 

2018 opinion, there exists no material issue of fact as to the description of the 

easement. It further determined Snowden asserted no issue of material fact

concerning any of his other claims and any legal issues had been resolved by prior 

orders. On this basis, the court dismissed Snowden’s remaining claims. Both 

parties timely moved to alter, amend, or vacate the judgment because it did not 

address the location of the easement. Snowden also requested the court vacate the 

dismissal of his claims because they remained unresolved. 

The circuit court amended its judgment on April 18, 2022, identifying

the location of the conservation easement based on Snowden’s development plan. 

The court determined an evidentiary hearing was necessary because the easement 

contained a latent ambiguity requiring consideration of parol evidence to determine 

the location of the fourth boundary. 

The circuit court was unconvinced by Snowden’s argument that the 

City must be bound by its statements that the fourth boundary is the sightline 

between the two historic homes. The court determined that at no time did the City 

assert the sightline between the two homes would constitute the entirety of the 

easement. The court found any statements the City or its counsel made regarding 
-12-

the sightline “were clearly inconsistent with the more specific portions of the 

City’s argument[,]” including its repeated assertion that the easement consisted of 

approximately 100 acres. R. at 882.

The circuit court found there was “overwhelming evidence” that the 

parties intended for the location of the easement to be based on Snowden’s

development plan and that the plan was likely meant to be one of the missing 

exhibits. While the sightline between the two historic homes as the fourth side 

would create an easement of approximately 40 acres, the “permanent greenspace” 

referenced in the development plan amounts to 105.31 acres. The plan was also

consistent with Snowden’s statements to the Planning Commission and city 

council in 1997, the easement description, and the 2018 opinion of this Court.

5

 

The development plan accurately depicted the frontage amounts along U.S. 

Highway 68 and Kentucky Highway 29 included in the description. Based on the 

development plan, the circuit court held

The legal description of the Conservation Easement 

conveyed by Mr. Snowden to the City of Wilmore shall 

be the area described as the East Field Permanent 

Greenspace Area of 83.10 acres and the West Field 

Permanent Greenspace Area of 22.21 acres for a total of 

105.31 acres, as shown on [the City’s] Exhibit 5 from the 

5 Despite Snowden’s repeated assertion otherwise, this Court’s opinion did not reference the 

“sightline” between the two homes. Instead, this Court only described the conservation 

easement as “consisting of approximately 100 acres lying between the Betty Bryan House and 

the Ashbrook House.” 
-13-

trial of June 28, 2021, which is incorporated herein by 

reference. 

Id. at 886. This appeal followed.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Decisions on motions for summary judgment, applications of the law 

of the case doctrine, and determinations of whether statements are judicial 

admissions are all reviewed de novo. Martin v. Wallace, 651 S.W.3d 753, 756 

(Ky. 2022) (citation omitted); University Medical Center, Inc. v. Beglin, 432 

S.W.3d 175, 178 (Ky. App. 2014); Reece v. Dixie Warehouse and Cartage Co., 

188 S.W.3d 440, 448 (Ky. App. 2006) (footnote omitted). 

ANALYSIS

On appeal, Snowden argues the circuit court erred in three respects: 

(1) by applying the law of the case doctrine; (2) by denying his motion for 

summary judgment because the conservation easement is legislatively invalid; and,

(3) by not finding the City’s statements regarding the “sightline” between the two 

historic homes to be judicial admissions. Snowden further argues that this Court, 

in Kopser, No. 2001-CA-000232-MR, determined his development plan was not 

final or binding upon him.

First, the law of the case is “an iron rule, universally recognized, that 

an opinion or decision of an appellate court in the same cause is the law of the case 

for a subsequent trial or appeal[.]” TECO Mechanical Contractor, Inc. v. Kentucky 
-14-

Labor Cabinet, 474 S.W.3d 153, 158 (Ky. App. 2014) (citation omitted). Once an 

issue is decided by an appellate court, it cannot be relitigated. St. Clair v. 

Commonwealth, 455 S.W.3d 869, 887 (Ky. 2015) (citation omitted). The doctrine 

guards against parties endlessly revisiting previously decided issues so that 

litigants can be ensured finality of appellate decisions. Wright v. Carroll, 452 

S.W.3d 127, 130 (Ky. 2014) (citation omitted). 

In both the May 12, 2021 interlocutory and March 22, 2022 

judgments, the circuit court correctly determined that Snowden was precluded 

from raising any issue concerning the adequacy of the description in the 

conservation easement, including his argument regarding whether a final plat is 

necessary. This Court’s 2018 decision determined the description was adequate 

and that decision cannot now be relitigated.

As to any claim not relating to the adequacy of the description,

Snowden was given adequate opportunity to litigate all his claims. Importantly, in 

the March 22, 2022 judgment, the circuit court did not dismiss Snowden’s other 

claims based on the law of the case but instead determined he had asserted no issue 

of material fact relating to any of his remaining claims. See Steelvest, Inc. v. 

Scansteel Service Center, Inc., 807 S.W.2d 476, 480 (Ky. 1991).6 He was given 

6

It appears from the record that the circuit court granted summary judgment on Snowden’s 

claims sua sponte. Despite having argued in briefing that Snowden’s amended complaint should 

have been dismissed based on the law of the case doctrine, the City did not formally move for 
-15-

ample time to complete the discovery. Blankenship v. Collier, 302 S.W.3d 665, 

668 (Ky. 2010) (citation omitted). The record contains numerous notices of 

depositions, interrogatories, and requests for the production of documents from 

Snowden. The record does not reveal any genuine issue of material fact. 

Furthermore, on appeal, Snowden identifies no such issue. Instead, he focuses the 

entirety of his argument on the law of the case doctrine. We can only find that the 

circuit court properly dismissed his claims.

Furthermore, the circuit court properly denied summary judgment on 

Snowden’s claim of legislative invalidity. He claims the conservation easement is 

void because the City did not comply with the procedure for passing ordinances 

under KRS 83A.060. In its July 20, 2020 interlocutory order, the circuit court 

found that acceptance and approval of a conservation easement do not constitute an 

ordinance under KRS 83A.010(11), meaning that the procedures a city must follow 

to pass an ordinance do not apply. Snowden again makes no argument contesting 

the reasoning of the circuit court. 

An ordinance is “an official action of a city legislative body, which is 

a regulation of a general and permanent nature and enforceable as a local law or is 

an appropriation of money.” KRS 83A.010(11). A conservation easement is not 

summary judgment. Kentucky law discourages sua sponte dismissals. Smith v. Norton 

Hospitals, Inc., 488 S.W.3d 23, 35 (Ky. App. 2016) (citation omitted). However, this issue is not 

before us.
-16-

an appropriation of money. Although an easement such as the one agreed to by 

Snowden and the City is an official action and of a permanent nature, it is not 

“general.” Like any easement, a conservation easement is created by and 

interpreted as a contract. Vorherr v. Coldiron, 525 S.W.3d 532, 542 (Ky. App. 

2017) (citations omitted); see also KRS 382.810(1). As a contract, the easement 

binds only the parties thereto – Snowden and the City. See Ping v. Beverly 

Enterprises, Inc., 376 S.W.3d 581, 595 (Ky. 2012). Therefore, it cannot be defined 

as “general.”

The easement also is not “enforceable as a local law” under KRS 

83A.065. The City cannot cite, fine, or penalize Snowden for violating the 

easement. KRS 83A.065(1). A violation would not be a misdemeanor. KRS 

83A.065(2). Instead, the circuit court correctly cites section 6 of the easement 

itself, which lists remedies available to the City. R. at 30-31. Where Snowden has 

not cited any authority contradicting this analysis, we affirm the circuit court’s July 

20, 2020 order.

Next, the circuit court appropriately found that the City’s statements 

were not judicial admissions. A judicial admission is “a formal statement 

concerning a disputed fact, made by a party during a judicial proceeding, that is 

adverse to that party, and that is deliberate, clear, and uncontradicted[.]” Turner v. 

C & R Asphalt, LLC, 579 S.W.3d 194, 197 (Ky. App. 2019) (citation omitted). 
-17-

“The conclusiveness of a judicial admission should be determined in the light of all 

the conditions and circumstances proven in the case.” Reece, 188 S.W.3d at 448 

(internal quotation marks and footnote omitted). Such admissions must be 

narrowly construed. Id. 

Here, Snowden asserts the City made judicial admissions when 

describing the easement, referring to the “sightline” between the Betty Bryan 

House and the Ashbrook House. Although these statements were adverse to the 

City’s interests, they do not constitute judicial admissions as to the fourth boundary 

of the easement. These statements are directly contradicted by the City’s constant

assertion that the easement consists of approximately 100 acres, which is 

consistent with the description of the easement and Snowden’s development plan. 

Although imprecise, these statements cannot be considered judicial admissions 

because they are not uncontradicted.

Finally, Snowden’s argument that his development plan is not 

“binding on him” based on this Court’s decision in Kopser, No. 2001-CA-000232-

MR, is incorrect. In Kopser, this Court affirmed an order of the circuit court which 

held an agreed order between the parties “did not prevent Snowden from 

proceeding with the typical planning process including seeking modifications or 

variances from the original preliminary plat as provided by the rules and 

regulations of the Planning Commission.” Id. at 4. This Court described the 
-18-

preliminary plat as “illustrative.” Id. at 10. Although Snowden and the City were 

parties to Kopser, it is a distinct action from the current matter. Kopser originated 

as a challenge by adjacent property owners to the rezoning sought by Snowden and 

granted by the city council. Although this Court acknowledged Snowden’s right to 

pursue usual planning procedures through the planning commission, the opinion 

did not pertain to the conservation easement. Instead, it appears to relate to the 

housing development Snowden intended to implement on the remainder of the 

property.7 

Here, the circuit court did not limit Snowden’s ability to pursue 

changes to his development plan before the planning commission. This action was 

immediately preceded by Snowden’s unsuccessful attempt to do so in 2016. 

Instead, the court relied upon the plan to determine where the parties intended the 

conservation easement to be located. It is appropriate to use extrinsic evidence to 

ascertain the parties’ intent where the evidence shows “the circumstances 

surrounding execution of the contract, the subject matter of the contract, the 

objects to be accomplished, [or] the conduct of the parties.” Vorherr, 525 S.W.3d 

at 543 (citations omitted). The development plan is clear evidence of the parties’ 

7 Because Kopser arose from a separate circuit court action, the record is not before us. 

However, the opinion of this Court references an agreement among the parties stipulating to 

various conditions which appear to relate to construction of a subdivision.
-19-

intent when the easement was executed. Nothing in Kopser precludes the court 

from relying upon the plan in this manner. 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the October 28, 2018, November 9, 2018, 

August 9, 2019, July 20, 2020, September 24, 2020, May 12, 2021, March 22, 

2022, and April 18, 2022 orders of the Jessamine Circuit Court are affirmed. 

Specifically, the circuit court’s reliance on Snowden’s development plan and the 

resulting description of the location of the easement contained in its April 18, 2022 

amended judgment are affirmed. Furthermore, the court properly dismissed 

Snowden’s remaining claims.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:

Carl D. Edwards, Jr.

Will E. Messer

Lexington, Kentucky

Christopher M. Clendenen

Lexington, Kentucky

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES CITY OF 

WILMORE AND JESSAMINE 

COUNTY/CITY OF WILMORE 

JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION:

Robert L. Gullette, Jr.

Nicholasville, Kentucky

Henry E. Smith

Nicholasville, Kentucky