O'Hare v. Hulme

Citation458 P.3d 1225
Decision Date03 March 2020
Docket NumberS-19-0094,S-19-0093
Parties Catherine K. O’HARE, Appellant (Defendant), v. Christopher HULME, Appellee (Plaintiff). Christopher Hulme, Appellant (Plaintiff), v. Catherine K. O’Hare, Appellee (Defendant).
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Wyoming

Representing Catherine K. O’Hare: Mitchell H. Edwards, Nicholas & Tangeman, LLC, Laramie, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Edwards.

Representing Christopher Hulme: Nicholas A. Norris, Lubnau Law Office, P.C., Gillette, Wyoming. Argument by Mr. Norris.

Before DAVIS, C.J., and FOX, KAUTZ, BOOMGAARDEN, and GRAY, JJ.

FOX, Justice.

[¶1] This dispute concerns the property boundary between two residential lots connected by a shared driveway in Rawlins, Wyoming. Christopher Hulme filed suit against Catherine "Cali" O’Hare, claiming that he had adversely possessed a 30-inch strip of her driveway, that he had an easement over the entire driveway, and that she had intentionally trespassed on the adversely possessed portion of his property by constructing a fence on it. Ms. O’Hare asserted various counterclaims. The parties filed serial motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Mr. Hulme on his adverse possession claim, and in favor of Ms. O’Hare on Mr. Hulme’s prescriptive easement and implied easement claims.1 After the district court denied Ms. O’Hare’s motion to reconsider its adverse possession decision, the remaining issues proceeded to a bench trial. The parties cross appeal the decisions on their first motions for summary judgment, the denied motion for reconsideration, and the bench trial. We reverse in part and remand.

ISSUES

[¶2] The parties raise a variety of issues that we consolidate and rephrase:2

1. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Mr. Hulme on his adverse possession claim?
2. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. O’Hare on Mr. Hulme’s prescriptive easement claim?
3. Did the district court err in granting summary judgment in favor of Ms. O’Hare on Mr. Hulme’s implied easement claim?
FACTS
The Driveway

[¶3] The property line between 1017 8th Street, owned by Catherine "Cali" O’Hare, and 1011 8th Street, owned by Christopher Hulme, runs down a concrete driveway that is 18.2 feet wide at its widest point. The property line follows a visible concrete pour seam and puts 10.1 feet of the driveway on Ms. O’Hare’s side, leaving 8.1 feet of driveway on Mr. Hulme’s. Mr. Hulme’s side of the driveway leads to a large garage/shop that he uses to park and work on various vehicles and pieces of equipment. For many years, a set of clothesline posts stood approximately 30 inches to the north of the concrete seam on Ms. O’Hare’s lot. Throughout this dispute, Mr. Hulme has asserted that he, his predecessors in interest, and the neighboring owners of the 1017 property had always treated the clothesline posts as the true property boundary.

1981-2003: "We were just neighborly and we shared it."

[¶4] The clothesline posts stood on what is now Ms. O’Hare’s lot when Mr. Hulme first lived at 1011 8th Street as a young child. Mr. Hulme moved into the property with his mother in 1981. The two of them resided there from 1981 until 2003, as did Rick Hulme3 from 1986 to 1996. Mr. Hulme testified that both his mother and their 1017 neighbor, Jimmy Bentsen, used to hang clothes on the clothesline between the posts. He also testified that the posts served as "the divider for the driveway" and that his 1017 neighbors "always parked to the north of the[ ] poles, and [he and his mother] always parked to the south." Between 1981 and 2003, he and his family used the driveway to the south of the poles for parking multiple vehicles and various trailers and campers, accessing the garage and the backyard, and entering and exiting the property. They maintained the entire driveway by shoveling, clearing out leaves, and mowing a strip of grass on the 1017 side of the driveway. They also used the 1017 side of the driveway to maneuver around other vehicles parked on their side in order to avoid moving and reparking every vehicle on their side of the driveway whenever they exited and entered it. Jimmy Bentsen used the Hulme’s side of the driveway for the same purpose. Mr. Hulme testified that there was never any agreement as to how his family and the neighbors used the driveway between 1981 and 2003; rather, "It was neighborly. We were just neighborly and we shared it."

[¶5] Rick similarly attested that he and Mr. Hulme’s mother "owned the [1011] property up and to the two (2) clothesline posts that split the driveway and we utilized it as if it was ours" and "hung rugs and clothes out on that line." Although he could not "remember any specific conversations" with Jimmy Bentsen, Rick asserted that "it was absolutely understood that the property boundary ran the length of the driveway in line with the two posts." According to Rick, he, Mr. Hulme, and Mr. Hulme’s mother "utilized the driveway right up against the two (2) posts," "stored things there, kept a garbage can there, parked our vehicles, entered and exited vehicles in that space and drove in and out from our garage," and "occasionally even parked [a] semi-tractor ... with a sleeper in the driveway." Like Mr. Hulme, Rick attested that Jimmy Bentsen "occasionally" used the Hulme’s side of the driveway to drive around vehicles parked on his own side "just like we would use his side of the driveway to drive around a vehicle parked" on their side. Finally, Rick attested that "Jimmy Bentsen never gave [them] permission, nor did [they] have any agreement, about our use of the driveway."

2004-2006 Interlude

[¶6] Mr. Hulme moved out of 1011 8th Street sometime in 2003. His mother moved out in 2004 and defaulted on her mortgages around that time. In March 2006, another longtime-8th Street neighbor, Elnagrace Watson, purchased the 1011 property at a foreclosure sale. Ms. Watson allowed Mr. Hulme to move into the property immediately after she purchased it and then deeded it to him in August 2006 when he was able to secure a loan to pay her back the amount of her bid at the foreclosure sale. In sum, the property was vacant from sometime in 2004 when Mr. Hulme’s mother moved out, to sometime in 2006 when he moved back in.4

2006-2016: "until Cali O’Hare, I have got along with all of my neighbors."

[¶7] Not long after Mr. Hulme moved back in, Jimmy Bentsen died, leaving 1017 8th Street to two of his children. They gave Mr. Hulme permission to store a large dumpster, a trailer, and a camper on the 1017 side of the driveway while the property was vacant. His things were still there when Eric Boles purchased the property in February 2008. Mr. Hulme told Mr. Boles that he would move his things off the 1017 side of the driveway before Mr. Boles moved in, explaining that "anything north of the poles [was his] to park." After Mr. Boles moved in, Mr. Hulme testified that he continued to use his side of the driveway up to the poles as his family had between 1981 and 2003: for parking various vehicles and trailers, intermittent storage of lawn furniture, barrels, and buckets, and for ingress and egress onto the property. Mr. Hulme also continued to maintain the entire driveway by removing snow, blowing leaves, and trimming the grass on the 1017 side of the property. He testified that he did so because he "was just trying to get along" and that it was "just easier to [plow] the whole driveway" because "you’re out there anyway. ... And until Cali O’Hare, I have got along with all of my neighbors." He also continued to use Mr. Boles’ side of the driveway to maneuver around vehicles parked on his own side of the driveway. Mr. Hulme testified that Mr. Boles never stored anything on the driveway south of the poles but that he "may have" occasionally used the driveway south of the poles to maneuver around parked vehicles and that such use would not have bothered him.

[¶8] The status quo continued until Ms. O’Hare moved in to 1017 8th Street in July 2013. Ms. O’Hare’s father, Donald O’Hare, purchased the property on July 12, 2013, and transferred it to Ms. O’Hare via quitclaim deed the same day. The day Ms. O’Hare moved into the house, Mr. Hulme told her father that the clothesline posts marked the property line between the two sides of the driveway. Mr. O’Hare was immediately "skeptical" because the poles were too close to Ms. O’Hare’s house to allow access to the rear of the property and because they did not align with the concrete pour seam in the driveway, which he believed was "somewhat typical of property lines. That they would have a pour seam on the property line versus 2 and a half feet in." At some point, Mr. O’Hare explained this to Mr. Hulme, who "didn’t believe it or want to talk about it." In October 2013, Mr. O’Hare personally measured his daughter’s lot and determined that the property boundary roughly aligned with the concrete pour seam. Shortly afterwards, he erected a makeshift fence of PVC pipe about two inches north of the seam on his daughter’s lot. Mr. Hulme promptly ran it over with his truck. The O’Hares called the police, who suggested that they get an official survey of the property. Mr. O’Hare obtained a survey, which confirmed that the property boundary did not align with the clothesline posts, but rather with the concrete pour seam.

[¶9] Meanwhile, Mr. Hulme and Ms. O’Hare struggled to get along. Ms. O’Hare testified that Mr. Hulme antagonized her dogs by throwing rocks at her fence, repeatedly gave her "a menacing look," called her names, and, on one occasion, threw two severed deer legs into her front yard. After Ms. O’Hare’s boyfriend moved in with her in late 2013, her relationship with Mr. Hulme improved somewhat. However, their feud resumed in August 2016. Around that time, Mr. Hulme’s family and friends began parking their vehicles at the end of the driveway so as to block Ms. O’Hare from entering and exiting her side of the driveway. Ms. O’Hare’s father...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Prancing Antelope I, LLC v. Saratoga Inn Overlook Homeowners Ass'n, Inc.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 7, 2021
    ...light as the district court, using the same materials and following the same standards." O'Hare v. Hulme , 2020 WY 31, ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 1225, 1233 (Wyo. 2020) (quoting Little Med. Creek Ranch, Inc. v. D'Elia , 2019 WY 103, ¶ 15, 450 P.3d 222, 228 (Wyo. 2019) ). "Summary judgment is proper onl......
  • Jontra Holdings Pty Ltd. v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 29, 2021
    ...arguments unsupported by cogent argument and cites to record and relevant authority); O'Hare v. Hulme, 2020 WY 31, ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 1225, 1233 (Wyo. 2020) ("Since the district court did not have [documents filed after summary judgment] before it, we cannot consider such documents in our revie......
  • Jontra Holdings Pty LTD v. Gas Sensing Tech. Corp.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • January 29, 2021
    ...not consider arguments unsupported by cogent argument and cites to record and relevant authority); O'Hare v. Hulme , 2020 WY 31, ¶ 17, 458 P.3d 1225, 1233 (Wyo. 2020) ("Since the district court did not have [documents filed after summary judgment] before it, we cannot consider such document......
  • Lyman v. Childs
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 14, 2023
    ...permissive use. [¶12] An adverse possession claim creates several shifting presumptions. See O'Hare v. Hulme, 2020 WY 31, ¶ 20, 458 P.3d 1225, 1234 (Wyo. 2020); Hillard Marshall, 888 P.2d 1255, 1259-60 (Wyo. 1995). A presumption of ownership first rests with the record title holder unless a......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT