Court Opinion

ID: 9390702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-28 14:04:56.899119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:36.320117
License: Public Domain

RENDERED: APRIL 21, 2023; 10:00 A.M.
                       NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

                Commonwealth of Kentucky
                         Court of Appeals

                            NO. 2022-CA-0950-MR

MELISSA DAWN BYARLY N/K/A
LISA DAWN SISK                                                    APPELLANT

               APPEAL FROM CALDWELL CIRCUIT COURT
v.              HONORABLE JAMES R. REDD, III, JUDGE
                       ACTION NO. 19-CI-00141

CALDWELL COUNTY WATER
DISTRICT                                                            APPELLEE

                                  OPINION
                                 AFFIRMING

                                 ** ** ** ** **

BEFORE: THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE; KAREM AND MCNEILL, JUDGES.

THOMPSON, CHIEF JUDGE: Melissa Dawn Byarly, now known as Lisa Dawn

Sisk, appeals from an order granting summary judgment in favor of the Caldwell

County Water District. We find no error and affirm.
                    FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

             On August 6, 2019, Appellee filed the complaint in this action seeking

an injunction against Appellant. Appellee alleged that Appellant had encroached

on an easement Appellee had on Appellant’s property. Appellee had installed

water distribution lines under the land described in the easement. Appellant had

erected an outbuilding near the easement and then installed a lean-to onto the

building. It was this lean-to that went over top of and onto the easement and,

according to Appellee, blocked its access to the water line. Appellant denied the

encroachment. Appellee requested an order requiring the encroaching building be

removed.

             After some discovery, Appellee provided a survey report which stated

that the outbuilding’s lean-to did encroach onto the easement. Appellant then

disclosed that it had two experts who would testify as to the location of the

easement and that the lean-to did not prevent Appellee from accessing or

maintaining the water line.

             Appellee later moved for summary judgment claiming that its expert

surveyor’s report showed the lean-to encroached on the easement and Appellant

provided no evidence to the contrary. Appellant responded by restating what their

experts would testify to. It is worth noting that the surveyor’s report is in the

                                          -2-
record, as well as supporting affidavits, but there are no affidavits from Appellant’s

experts regarding their findings or anticipated testimony.

             A hearing was held regarding the summary judgment. Appellant

claims that she was not made aware of the hearing and did not attend. At the

hearing, trial counsel for Appellant conceded that he had no evidence to dispute

Appellee’s survey report. Appellant’s counsel also provided no evidence to

support Appellant’s claims and made no argument. The trial court then entered an

order enjoining Appellant from encroaching on the easement and gave her sixty

days to remove any part of the outbuilding that encroached on the easement. This

appeal followed.

                                    ANALYSIS

             Appellant argues on appeal that there is a material issue of fact that

prevents summary judgment. She claims that the lean-to is open air and would

allow Appellee access to the water line. In other words, Appellant argues that the

lean-to does not interfere with the use of the easement. Appellant also includes in

the appendix to her brief two affidavits from her experts. These affidavits state

that the lean-to would not prevent Appellee from accessing the water line at issue.

She also claims she was prevented from making an argument in her favor because

she was not informed of the summary judgment hearing and did not authorize her

attorney to concede any issues.

                                         -3-
                     The standard of review on appeal of a summary
             judgment is whether the trial court correctly found that
             there were no genuine issues as to any material fact and
             that the moving party was entitled to judgment as a
             matter of law. . . . “The record must be viewed in a light
             most favorable to the party opposing the motion for
             summary judgment and all doubts are to be resolved in
             his favor.” Summary “judgment is only proper where the
             movant shows that the adverse party could not prevail
             under any circumstances.” Consequently, summary
             judgment must be granted “[o]nly when it appears
             impossible for the nonmoving party to produce evidence
             at trial warranting a judgment in his favor[.]”

Scifres v. Kraft, 916 S.W.2d 779, 781 (Ky. App. 1996) (citations omitted). “A

party opposing a motion for summary judgment cannot rely merely on the

unsupported allegations of his pleadings, but is required to present some

affirmative evidence showing that there is a genuine issue of material fact for

trial.” Godman v. City of Fort Wright, 234 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Ky. App. 2007)

(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).

             Unfortunately for Appellant, the affidavits she attached to her brief

were not made part of the trial court record; therefore, we cannot consider them.

Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 24; Interactive Gaming Council v.

Commonwealth ex rel. Brown, 425 S.W.3d 107, 116 n.4 (Ky. App. 2014); Telek v.

Daugherty, 376 S.W.3d 623, 626 (Ky. App. 2012).

                     The use of the easement must be as reasonable and
             as little burdensome to the landowner as the nature and
             purpose of the easement will permit. But he has no right
             to use the land subject to the easement in such manner as

                                         -4-
               to interfere with the reasonable and prudent exercise and
               enjoyment of the easement by its owner.

Horky v. Kentucky Utilities Co., 336 S.W.2d 588, 589 (Ky. 1960) (citations

omitted); see also Central Ky. Nat. Gas Co. v. Huls, 241 S.W.2d 986, 987 (Ky.

1951). While Appellant’s lean-to might be open air, when considering only the

record before us, we conclude that Appellant provided no affirmative evidence that

the lean-to would not prohibit Appellee reasonable access to the water line. There

was no error in granting summary judgment in favor of Appellee.

               Also, we note that Appellant is troubled that she was not notified of

the summary judgment hearing, was unable to appear, and did not authorize her

trial attorney to concede any issues. Appellant is bound by the acts of her attorney,

even if those acts were negligent,1 because he was her agent. Herfurth v. Horine,

266 Ky. 19, 98 S.W.2d 21, 23 (1936); Douthitt v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of

America, 235 Ky. 328, 31 S.W.2d 377, 379 (1930).

                                      CONCLUSION

               Based on the foregoing, we affirm the judgment on appeal. Appellant

provided no evidence showing there was a genuine issue of material fact and

1
 We take no position on whether Appellant’s trial attorney was negligent in his handling of this
case. We are simply stating that a client is bound by the actions of his or her attorney even if
said actions are negligent.

                                               -5-
Appellee was entitled to judgment as a matter of law; therefore, summary

judgment was warranted.

            ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT:                    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE:

Robert B. Frazer                         Dailey E. Wilson
Marion, Kentucky                         Eddyville, Kentucky

                                       -6-