Court Opinion

ID: 9943377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-23 15:14:52.86685+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:46:55.383150
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: FEBRUARY 16, 2024; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                          Court of Appeals
                             NO. 2023-CA-0335-MR

MICHAEL F. HAYDEN                                                   APPELLANT

                APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT
v.                 HONORABLE MITCH PERRY, JUDGE
                        ACTION NO. 21-CI-003542

JOHN INGRAM GILDERBLOOM
AND ARN HOLDINGS, LLC                                                APPELLEES

                                   OPINION
                                  AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: COMBS, GOODWINE, AND LAMBERT, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: This case involves a land dispute between neighbors. Michael

F. Hayden appeals the judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court entered on cross-

motions for summary judgment. After our review, we affirm.

            Since at least the mid-1890s, parcels of real property facing Highland

Avenue in Louisville have benefitted from permanent easements appurtenant.

These easements, expressly created by deed, invest the property owners with the
non-exclusive right to use a private alleyway adjoining the rear portions of their

properties. By virtue of the terms of the express easements, the owners of these

parcels are said to enjoy dominant estates. The record does not reveal the owner of

the alleyway property; i.e., the burdened or servient estate.

             In June 2021, John Ingram (Gilderbloom) owner of the property at

1405 Highland Avenue in Louisville, filed a complaint in Jefferson Circuit Court.

ARN Holdings, LLC was later added as a plaintiff to the proceedings. We refer to

the plaintiffs (now Appellees) collectively as “Gilderbloom.”

             In his complaint, Gilderbloom alleged that Michael F. Hayden, owner

of property at 1407 Highland Avenue (Gilderbloom’s next-door neighbor to the

east), wrongfully blocked Gilderbloom’s access to the alley by constructing a fence

across it. He alleged that the fence prevents vehicular access to his back yard. As

a result, he cannot build a useful garage or receive deliveries at the rear of his

property. In addition, he can no longer easily move trash bins for garbage

collection at a separate adjoining alley to the east of Hayden.

             Gilderbloom’s recorded deed describes his property, in
             part, as follows:

             [R]unning thence Northeastwardly along the Northwest
             side of Highland Avenue 33 feet 4 inches and extending
             back Northwestwardly on the same width throughout
             between lines parallel with the Northeast line of Edward
             Street 128 feet, and as appurtenant to said lot the right to
             use and enjoy the 18 foot alleyway adjoining the Eastern

                                          -2-
            line of said lot connecting with a 10 foot alley giving
            outlet to the North.

(Emphasis added.) This or similar language is contained in Gilderbloom’s chain of

title from 1895 forward.

            The deeds in Hayden’s chain of title also incorporate metes-and-

bounds descriptions of his property. This deed, for example, recorded in 1894,

describes 1407 Highland Avenue as follows:

            Beginning in the northwardly line of Highland Avenue
            sixty six feet and eight inches eastwardly of the
            northwardly corner of Highland Avenue and Edward
            Street thence eastwardly with the northwardly line of
            Highland Avenue thirty three feet and four inches thence
            at right angles to Highland Avenue northwardly one
            hundred and ten feet to a private alley eighteen (18) feet
            wide and thirty three feet four inches long which alley
            has an outlet by the way of a private alley ten feet wide
            running northwardly to an alley running parallel to
            Highland Avenue said alleys are hereby dedicated to the
            use of second party or any tenant she may have or any
            party she may sell to thence westwardly with said
            eighteen foot alley thirty three feet and four inches,
            thence southwardly one hundred and ten feet to point of
            beginning.

(Emphasis added.) The same description is contained in the next deed transferring

ownership of the property. However, the next eleven deeds, while using a similar

metes-and-bounds description of the property to be transferred, omit reference to

the easements. The deed from Mark and Elaine Rose to Barney A. Sutton

(Hayden’s immediate predecessor in title) simply describes the northern boundary

                                        -3-
of the property (110 feet from Highland Avenue) as adjoining the south line of the

alley for a distance of 33 feet 4 inches.

             Following a period of discovery, Hayden filed a motion for summary

judgment. Hayden contended that access from the 1405 property to the disputed

alleyway adjoining the rear of his property had been “totally blocked and unused

for over twenty (20) years.” He argued that any right of the owners of 1405

Highland Avenue to cross the disputed alleyway had been lost through adverse

possession and that this fact was reflected in a recorded “deed of consolidation,”

dated January 24, 2001. The “deed of consolidation” now described the property

at 1407 Highland Avenue, in part, as follows:

             [T]hence at right angles to Highland Avenue,
             Northwardly 128 feet to the North line of a private
             alley; thence Eastwardly along the North line of said
             alley, 33 feet 4 inches; thence Southwardly 128 feet;
             thence Westwardly with the Northern line of Highland
             Avenue 33 feet 4 inches to the point of beginning.

             BEING a consolidation of property acquired by Barney
             A. Sutton, by Deed dated May 12, 1998, of record in
             Deed Book 7039, Page 762, in the Office of the Clerk of
             the County Court of Jefferson County, Kentucky, and
             property adversely possessed by Barney A. Sutton
             and his predecessors in title.

(Emphases added.) Hayden explained that “[a]fter Barney A. Sutton acquired the

former private alley by adverse possession and recorded [the “consolidation deed”]

in 2001, [Hayden] has owned and protected it by a back border fence.” Hayden

                                            -4-
asserted that “[f]or the last twenty (20) years, [he, Hayden] has had actual

possession, hostile control, exclusive use and open and notorious possession of the

northwest eighteen (18) feet of 1407 Highland Avenue . . . .” Hayden argued that

“[w]hen Gilderbloom purchased 1405 Highland Avenue [in June 2016], he was

fully aware and had actual knowledge that the former strip was completely and

totally closed, both visually and from the public record in the Deed of

Consolidation[.]” Hayden contended that there were no factual disputes and that

he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because “Gilderbloom fails to show

that he has any rights or cause for the real estate owned by Hayden.” He attached

dozens of photographs, a boundary survey, copies of deeds, and his sworn

affidavit.

             In response, Gilderbloom filed an affidavit in which he attested, in

part, as follows:

             6. When I purchased the property at 1405 Highland
                Ave., my rear yard was enclosed with a wood fence.
                A portion of that fence was across the 18-foot private
                alley in a north-south direction. However, that
                portion had a large, unlocked gate which allowed both
                parties access to the private alley at the rear of 1405
                and 1407 Highland Ave.

             7. From the time I purchased 1405 Highland Ave. in
                2016 until the spring and summer of 2019 when Mr.
                Hayden informed me I no longer had private alley
                access and until he constructed a sold wooden fence
                across the private alley, I used the private alley at the
                rear of his property to haul my garbage and recycling

                                          -5-
                to the alley location where it was picked up, to bring
                in sod and landscaping material, and to remove debris
                from my rear yard and house.

             8. From the time Mr. Hayden constructed the ungated
                fence across the private alley until the present, Mr.
                Hayden has prevented me from using that private
                alley.

             In addition, Gilderbloom filed his own motion for summary judgment.

Gilderbloom argued that he was entitled to summary judgment because the

conveyance of the 1405 Highland Avenue included an enduring right to access the

alley adjoining Hayden’s back yard. He explained that “[t]he string of deeds for

1405 Highland Avenue clearly gives an owner of that property a right to ‘use and

enjoy the eighteen-foot alley’, no matter the owner of the land the alley is on.” He

also noted that “the string of deeds for 1407 Highland Avenue, including the deed

to Hayden, fully acknowledge [sic] the existence of the private alley.”

Gilderbloom filed in the record the listing of the property for sale indicating that

the back of the property has a privacy fence and alley access with room to build a

garage. He filed copies of dozens of deeds conveying each of the parties’ property.

Oral argument was scheduled for January 11, 2023.

              Following oral arguments, the circuit court entered an order granting

summary judgment to Gilderbloom on February 27, 2023. The court determined

that Hayden could not show ownership of the disputed alleyway through adverse

                                          -6-
possession or otherwise and confirmed Gilderbloom’s right to use the alley as a

matter of law. This appeal followed.

             On appeal, Hayden argues that the circuit court erred by denying his

motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of

Gilderbloom. He argues that the undisputed evidence established his ownership in

fee simple of the disputed alleyway through adverse possession. We disagree.

             Our role in reviewing a grant of summary judgment is to determine

whether the circuit court correctly concluded that no genuine issue exists as to any

material fact -- and whether, based on such facts, the moving party was entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779 (Ky. App. 1996).

Because only legal questions and the existence, or non-existence, of material facts

are considered by the appellate court, a grant of summary judgment is reviewed de

novo. Lewis v. B & R Corp., 56 S.W.3d 432 (Ky. App. 2001).

             An express easement is created by a written grant with the formalities

of a deed. Loid v. Kell, 844 S.W.2d 428 (Ky. App. 1992). An easement

appurtenant is an interest in land conferring the enduring right of the dominant

tenement to enter the servient tenement. Meade v. Ginn, 159 S.W.3d 314 (Ky.

2004) (quoting 25 Am.Jur.2d Easements and Licenses in Real Property § 11

(1996); see also Scott v. Long Valley Farm Kentucky, Inc., 804 S.W.2d 15 (Ky.

App. 1991)). It invests the owner with “privileges that he cannot be deprived of at

                                         -7-
the mere will or wish of the proprietor of the servient estate.” Louisville Chair &

Furniture Co. v. Otter, 219 Ky. 757, 294 S.W. 483, 485 (1927). An easement

appurtenant inheres in the land but can be “terminated by an act of the parties (for

example, abandonment, merger, or conveyance) or by operation of law, as in the

case of forfeiture or otherwise.” Scott, 804 S.W.2d at 16.

             The forfeiture of easements by way of abandonment is strongly

disfavored in Kentucky. Colyer v. Coyote Ridge Farm, LLC, 565 S.W.3d 659 (Ky.

App. 2018). An easement created by a recorded deed of the dominant tenement is

not extinguished by its failure to be mentioned in the deed to a subsequent

purchaser of the real property under the easement. See Dukes v. Link, 315 S.W.3d

712, 713 (Ky. App. 2010). The terms of the conveyance determine the rights and

liabilities of the parties. See Texas E. Transmission Corp. v. Carman, 314 S.W.2d

684 (Ky. 1958) (citing Puckett v. Hatcher, 307 Ky. 160, 209 S.W.2d 742 (1948)).

             When Gilderbloom purchased his property at 1405 Highland Avenue,

it carried with it -- as the dominant estate under existing deed covenants running

with the land -- the right of enjoyment of the servient estate; namely, the disputed

alley. Similarly, when Hayden purchased the property next door, it carried with it

the nonexclusive right of enjoyment of the alley. By virtue of their ownership of

the parcels adjacent to the alley, the parties enjoyed the relative rights and

obligations that were fixed by the permanent easements established in their

                                          -8-
respective recorded deeds. Accordingly, the alley property retained the burden of

providing the dominant estates with access.

             Hayden claimed that Gilderbloom’s right to use the alley was lost by

nonuse. However, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the easements

were extinguished. Assertions or evidence indicating that Gilderbloom’s

successors in interest failed to make use of the alley for any length of time are

utterly irrelevant in deciding whether Hayden had a right to preclude or obstruct

Gilderbloom’s entry upon it. In Johnson v. Clark, 22 Ky. 418, 57 S.W. 474, 475

(1900), the court observed that “mere nonuser of an easement acquired by grant

does not destroy the easement[.]” Instead, there must be some act on the part of

the owner of the servient estate which is wholly inconsistent with the existence of

the easement. Id. (emphasis added); City of Harrodsburg v. Cunningham, 299 Ky.

193, 184 S.W.2d 357 (1944).

            Hayden is not the owner of the servient estate; he, like Gilderbloom,

was expressly granted the mere right to use it. There was no attempt in this case to

provide evidence to show unequivocal conduct on the part of the owner of the

servient estate consistent with an intention to discontinue the easement, which

could have caused the easement to be abandoned. In short, there is absolutely no

reason to conclude that the express easement granted the owner of 1405 Highland

Avenue has ever been abandoned or forfeited. This is purely a matter of law

                                         -9-
properly subject to the circuit court’s determination by means of summary

judgment.

             We wholly reject Hayden’s claim to the alley through adverse

possession. Hayden had an enforceable right to utilize the alley property. His

wrongful exclusion of (and/or the decision of his predecessors in interest to

exclude) fellow interest holders from the alley could not ripen into his fee simple

ownership of it. His wrongful exclusion of these interest holders was insufficient

as a matter of law to oust the owner of the alleyway property. Moreover, the

owner of the servient estate was never a party to these proceedings. Any attempt

to disseize the owner of the servient estate would have required his participation as

an indispensable party.

             The judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court is affirmed.

             ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                      BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Maurice A. Byrne, Jr.                      Stephen T. Porter
Louisville, Kentucky                       Louisville, Kentucky

                                        -10-