Source: https://www.southiowalaw.com/missouri-strictly-construes-private-road-statute/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 05:02:47+00:00

Document:
Missouri Courts recently addressed issues relating to the increase in size and weight of farm equipment and resulting problems accessing farmland. As equipment gets larger and heavier, existing easements and roads that have been used for decades often become inadequate to allow farmer’s access to fields.
In Westrich Farms, LLC v. East Prairie Farm, LLC, a landowner’s tenant could no longer use a county road to access the farm because his large equipment exceeded the weight limits for a bridge on the county road that ran to the farm and had previously been used. The issue for the court to decide was whether the landowner could establish a private road across his neighbor’s farm due to the county road becoming inadequate.
Missouri law does allow for the establishment of private roads across a neighbor’s land if there is not sufficient access to a public road under Missouri Statutes Section 228.342. However, in Westrich Farms, the court, while not denying that access to the farm may be limited, did find that the statute should be strictly construed and that if there is any access to a public road, the right to establish a private road on a neghbor’s property does not exist.
This relatively short case is provided here.
This appeal follows Plaintiff’s failed § 228.342 action for a private road across its neighbor’s farm. We affirm. Plaintiff’s claim does not fit the cited statute, which runs “against the common law and the common rights, and must, therefore, be strictly construed.” Wolfe v. Swopes, 955 S.W.2d 600, 602 (Mo.App.1997).
“If the court determines … there is access to a public road or that the way sought is not a way of strict necessity, then the petition shall be dismissed.” § 228.352. “Missouri courts have consistently interpreted section 228.342 to require a plaintiff to show … there exist no public roads through or alongside the land and that the private road petitioned for is mandated by strict necessity.” Short, 372 S.W.3d at 530 (citations and quotation marks omitted).
Plaintiff urges that its farm is “functionally landlocked” and County Road 702 is “inadequate for farming purposes” because the lessee’s equipment wights more than one bridge’s load limit. Yet Plaintiff’s few cited cases are distinguishable and do not support our stretching § 228.342 to fit this claim, nor does our research turn up a supporting case. We find instead the above-cited admonition that § 228.342 proceedings “are against the common law and the common rights, and must, therefore, be strictly construed.” Wolfe, 955 S.W.2d at 602; see also Andwerson v. Mantel, 49 S.W.3d 760, 765 (Mo.App. 2001) (quoting Wolfe). Accordingly, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.
Westrich Farms clearly limits a landowner’s ability to acquire an easement on a neighbor’s property where there is public road access but the public road is inadequate to handle large-scale farming equipment. It should be noted, that this situation may have limited applicability, and there are avenues to gain access to land for larger machinery.
Whether in Missouri or Iowa the most effecitve and cheapest remedy for potential disputes over access to land and easements is good neighborly relations.
Ed is an Associate Attorney at Orsborn, Milani, Mitchell & Goedken, L.L.P. Ed is licensed to practice law in Iowa and Missouri and is a Fellow at the Drake Agricultural Law Center. He lives in Centerville, Iowa with his wife and two daughters. Contact Ed at 515-856-3251.
To provide comprehensive legal services to our clients in Iowa and Missouri.
© Orsborn Milani Mitchell Goedken Larson & Cox, LLP, 2018. | All rights reserved.

References: v. 
 § 228
 v. 
 § 228
 § 228
 § 228
 v.