Opinion ID: 2581408
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: evidentiary presumptions

Text: [¶ 42] The Board argues that our prior decisions distinguish between public and private prescriptive easements and that the statute's text, combined with our decisions regarding claimed public prescriptive easements, create a lighter burden for public prescriptive easement claimants, as well as an evidentiary presumption that the claimant's use is adverse. The Board cites to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101(d) ([o]nly that portion of county highways ... actually constructed or substantially maintained by the county and travelled and used by the general public for ... [ten years] ... shall be presumed to be public highways lawfully established as such by official authority) and language in Hinckley, 593 P.2d at 580, that in order to establish a public road by prescription, a county need only meet the requirements set forth in § 24-1 [the statute's prior number] . . . . Next, the Board quotes our discussion in Steplock, 894 P.2d at 605 ( quoting Patrick, 107 P. at 750) regarding the substantive aspect of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, namely that it `should be shown, in addition to the use of a road by the public, the assumption of control and jurisdiction over it by the board . . .' and that it is [u]se by the public, coupled with maintenance by the county, [that] gives rise to the right to establish a county road by prescription. . . . Finally, the Board points to language in Koontz, 746 P.2d at 1268, that a property owner's failure to interrupt or object to the public use of the road cannot be equated to permissive use and that if the private landowner establishes through competent evidence that the public's use is merely permissive, the question of supervision, control or maintenance is irrelevant. If the landowner fails to establish permissive use, he is still entitled to a presumption of permissive use unless the public authority establishes that it has assumed supervision or control of the road or has kept it in repair. (Emphasis in original.) [¶ 43] The authority cited by the Board does not convince us that a public claimant bears any lighter burden than a private claimant per se. In a case originating under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, we stated that, by expressly referring to the common-law doctrines, the statute incorporates the prior decisions of this court. Steplock, 894 P.2d at 605. Accordingly, neither the statutory text, nor the language cited from Koontz and Steplock, undermine this statement or qualify our prior decisions based on the common law. A county's construction or maintenance of a road is certainly evidence of its control and jurisdiction of the road, which is necessary, no matter what analytical framework is utilized in evaluating the evidence, to demonstrate that its use is adverse and under a claim of right in the public. The Board's reliance on the additional sentence in Hinckley (a county need only meet the requirements set forth in § 24-1) is misplaced, as that sentence concluded a discussion of whether a public claimant must, in addition to the requirements of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, also pay damages for a prescriptive easement pursuant to the condemnation statutes. Hinckley, 593 P.2d at 580. We held that a public claimant need only satisfy the requirements of what is now Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, and not those set forth in the condemnation statutes. Hinckley, 593 P.2d at 580. [¶ 44] Considerable argument is devoted to the application of presumptions in evaluating the evidence adduced at the contested case hearing, which coincides with the Board's argument that a public claimant bears a lighter burden of proof. Our prior decisions refer to or apply several such presumptions. The land in question being unimproved and unenclosed prairie land until some public authority, acting within its proper sphere, assumed supervision or control of the road or kept it in repair, the use of it by the public will be deemed to have been permissive by the owner. Patrick, 104 P. at 532. The Board utilized this presumption in evaluating the evidence it received in this case. [¶ 45] In Koontz, 746 P.2d at 1268, which involved a claimed public prescriptive easement (though not pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101), we applied the following principles in reviewing the record. Public use of a road will be deemed permissive unless a public authority has assumed supervision and control of the road or has kept it in repair. Koontz, 746 P.2d at 1268. If the landowner establishes that the public's use is merely permissive, the question of supervision, control or maintenance is irrelevant because a prescriptive easement cannot be acquired if the use is permissive. Id. If permissive use is not established, the landowner is still entitled to a presumption of permissive use unless the public authority establishes that it has assumed supervision or control of the road or has kept it in repair. Id. The Board similarly referred to these principles in its legal findings. [¶ 46] In cases involving a claimed private easement by prescription, we have said that 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. A.B. Cattle Co., 943 P.2d at 1188 ( quoting Weiss, 933 P.2d at 501). This concept stems from the fact that neighborliness and accommodation to the needs of a neighbor are landmarks of our western life-style. A.B. Cattle Co., 943 P.2d at 1189. The Board decided not to apply this presumption in evaluating the evidence before it. [¶ 47] The authority cited by the Board does not necessarily establish an evidentiary presumption of adverse use in favor of the claimant in this case, except that, as in most cases, once a claimant produces sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case, the burden then shifts to the opposing party. Hillard v. Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255, 1260 (Wyo.1995); Shumway, 637 P.2d at 669-70. We note that in Hinckley, 593 P.2d at 579, 580, a case originating under a prior version of Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101, we first cited to decisions requiring that a public claimant take formal, official action in order to establish a prescriptive easement, and stated the following regarding what is now Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 24-1-101(d): After these cases were decided, the legislature enacted legislation creating a presumption of official establishment of state highways where there was public use for the prescribed period. This presumption of official establishment was subsequently extended to county highways, and then, in 1973, specific procedures were established to govern a county's acquisition of a road by prescription. The 1973 amendments are consistent with our previous holdings that a county must take official actionincluding a declaration of purpose to acquire the lands and the filing of a survey plat of the proposed roadsbefore it can acquire a road by prescription. (Emphasis in original.) Further, a presumption of adverse use does not arise where the user is shown to be permissive in its inception, or where it is not shown to have continued for the prescriptive period; nor, in the absence of some decisive act indicating separate and exclusive use, does it arise where the user is not inconsistent with the rights of the owner, as, for instance, where the user is in connection with that of the owner or the public or is claimed with respect to unoccupied, uninclosed, and unimproved lands, the use in such cases being presumed to be permissive and in subordination to the owner's title. Shumway, 637 P.2d at 669 ( quoting 28 C.J.S. Easements § 68 at 736-37 (1941)) (emphasis in original). In this regard, we also stated in a case involving a private claimant, the following: The appellants argue that, under Shumway v. Tom Sanford, Inc., 637 P.2d 666 (Wyo.1981), they are entitled to a presumption that their use of the roadway was adverse. The appellants misread the Shumway case. In that case, this Court recognized that our prior decisions were inconsistent with regard to whether, in establishing prescriptive easements, a presumption existed that the use was hostile or a presumption existed that the use was permissive. 637 P.2d at 669. Weiss, 933 P.2d at 501. The opinion went on to say that we resolved that inconsistency in Shumway, quoting the previously-referenced excerpt regarding the presumption arising from neighborliness ( Shumway, 637 P.2d at 670). Weiss, 933 P.2d at 501. Similarly, it must be further remembered that prescriptive easements are not favored in law, and thus entry into another's possession is presumed to have been with the landowner's permission absent evidence of a hostile entry. Caribou Four Corners, Inc. v. Chapple-Hawkes, Inc., 643 P.2d 468, 471 (Wyo. 1982).