Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc.

Decision Date15 December 1998
Docket NumberNos. 73826,73872,s. 73826
CitationKnox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356 (Mo. App. 1998)
PartiesKNOX COUNTY STONE CO., Plaintiff/Respondent, v. BELLEFONTAINE QUARRY, INC., Defendant/Appellant, Maryon Industries, Inc., Intervenor/Appellant.
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals

David L. Welsh, Welsh & Hubble, P.C., St. Louis, for appellant Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc.

Gerard F. Hempstead, Paul E. Petruska, Brasher Law Firm, L.C., St. Louis, for appellant Maryon Industries, Inc.

Stephen C. Murphy, Devereux, Murphy, Striler, Brickey & Sher, St. Louis, for respondent Knox County Stone Co.

KATHIANNE KNAUP CRANE, Judge.

This appeal involves a dispute over the existence of an easement for a right-of-way for a railroad sidetrack which crosses over defendant's land. The trial court found that because plaintiff's predecessor in title had reserved the sidetrack when it conveyed the land over which it ran, plaintiff owned the sidetrack with full right of ingress and egress. The court ordered defendant and intervenor to remove certain encumbrances therefrom. Defendant and intervenor appeal, primarily arguing that plaintiff's interest in the sidetrack was abandoned or extinguished and did not exist when it was reserved in the deed. We affirm on the grounds that plaintiff's predecessor in title reserved an appurtenant easement for a right-of-way for a railroad sidetrack which passed to plaintiff by deed of the estate to which the easement was appurtenant and was not extinguished by non-use or abandonment.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, Knox County Stone Company (Knox County), and defendant, Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., own properties in north St. Louis County along the Missouri River which are the sites of quarry operations. These properties are separated by Highway 367 and the main line tracks of the Burlington Northern Railroad (the railroad). Bellefontaine Quarry's property (west tract) is west of the highway and the railroad tracks and Knox County's property (east tract) is east of the highway and the railroad tracks.

Missouri Portland Cement Company (MPC) originally owned both tracts as one parcel of property. It operated a quarry on what is now the east tract to provide rock for its cement plant on Riverview Boulevard in the City of St. Louis. In 1947 MPC and the railroad's predecessor entered into an industrial trackage agreement whereby MPC paid the railroad to construct a sidetrack on its property, MPC became the owner of the track, and the railroad obtained the right to use the track. The sidetrack ran from the railroad's main line to the west of Highway 367, then curved east under the highway bridge and over to its quarry. MPC used the sidetrack to transport rock from its property to the main tracks until 1979. MPC shut down the operations of its Riverview Boulevard plant in November, 1981, and did not take rock from its quarry after that date.

Beginning in 1968 MPC had leased part of what is now the west tract to West Lake Stone & Material Co. (West Lake), which operated an asphalt plant on the property. By quitclaim deed dated August 30, 1985, MPC conveyed the whole tract of land, including the West Lake lease, to H.K. Porter. H.K. Porter subsequently separated the property into the two tracts, the west tract and the east tract, identified above. By general warranty deed dated March 17, 1986, H.K. Porter conveyed the west tract to West Lake. In the deed, H.K. Porter reserved to itself an easement "for a perpetual right-of-way for a railroad sidetrack as presently existing" on the west tract.

On December 22, 1986, H.K. Porter conveyed the east tract to Central Stone "with all and singular, the rights, privileges, appurtenances and immunities thereto belonging or in anywise appertaining." When the property was conveyed to Central Stone in 1986, the sidetrack was not capable of handling any rail traffic. The rail and ties were still visible but rock and debris partially covered the tracks. In January and February of 1988, Central Stone began discussions with the railroad about reinstating rail service. Central Stone obtained quotes for renovating the rail and ties and putting in new switches. Central Stone's president testified it planned to use rail service from this quarry site, but work on the rail project was delayed in favor of other business priorities, including reestablishing quarry operations.

West Lake conveyed the west tract to Bellefontaine Quarry by general warranty deed dated July 18, 1991. As part of the sale transaction, Bellefontaine Quarry leased the asphalt plant portion of the tract to West Lake for 99 years. West Lake sublet the asphalt plant to intervenor, Maryon Industries, in May, 1993. Bellefontaine Quarry built a security gate at its entrance, which is on the sidetrack, and which would have to be moved if the sidetrack was used for rail service.

In late 1993, Central Stone resumed discussions with the railroad about reinstating rail service. By letter dated January 6, 1994 the railroad gave Central Stone a list of stipulations to complete in order to reinstate rail service. Central Stone reinitiated bid solicitations to refurbish the rails and resumed its contacts with the railroad to reinstall rail service. On August 8, 1994 Central Stone sent a courtesy notice to Bellefontaine Quarry that it had retained the services of a rail contract company to clean up and refurbish the rail spur. However, Bellefontaine Quarry would not allow Central Stone on the west tract to refurbish the sidetrack or estimate the cost of the refurbishing.

H.K. Porter executed a quitclaim deed dated August 5, 1994 specifically conveying the sidetrack to Central Stone.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On November 23, 1994 Central Stone filed a petition in which it alleged its ownership of the railroad sidetrack and requested that Bellefontaine Quarry be ordered to remove all encumbrances from the sidetrack. By counterclaim Bellefontaine Quarry sought to quiet title to the sidetrack and reform and cancel existing deeds which reserved the sidetrack to plaintiff. Maryon Industries, Bellefontaine Quarry's sublessee, was allowed to intervene. During the litigation, on April 1, 1998, Central Stone conveyed the east tract to its wholly-owned subsidiary, Knox County. As a result Knox County was substituted for Central Stone as plaintiff.

After a bench trial the trial court entered judgment for Knox County on both the petition and the counterclaim. The court found that, because H.K. Porter had reserved the sidetrack in its conveyance to West Lake in 1986, H.K. Porter's successor, Knox County, is the owner of the sidetrack. The court ordered Bellefontaine Quarry to remove gateposts from the sidetrack and ordered Maryon Industries to remove a trailer from the sidetrack. Maryon Industries and Bellefontaine Quarry have separately appealed.

DISCUSSION

On review of this court-tried case, we sustain the judgment of the trial court unless there is no substantial evidence to support it, it is against the weight of the evidence, it erroneously declares the law, or it erroneously applies the law. Rule 73.01(c); Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976). We accept the evidence and inferences favorable to the prevailing party and disregard all contrary evidence. Lake Cable, Inc. v. Trittler, 914 S.W.2d 431, 434 (Mo.App.1996).

In their briefs Bellefontaine Quarry and Maryon Industries (hereinafter jointly referred to as appellants) raise essentially the same points, albeit in a different order. They each contend that the trial court erred in declaring that Knox County owned the sidetrack because rights to the sidetrack had been abandoned or extinguished and did not exist when it was reserved in 1986. They further assert that the trial court's action was barred by the doctrine of laches. We will consider their points by subject matter.

I. Claims Relating to the Creation and Existence of the Easement

Appellants each contend that Knox County and its predecessors in title, Central Stone, H.K. Porter, and MPC, abandoned the sidetrack and therefore had no rights to use the sidetrack. They argue that the easement was an easement for a particular purpose, a railroad sidetrack, and that the easement ceased to exist when MPC and H.K. Porter no longer used the right-of-way as a sidetrack. They further argue that H.K. Porter did not reserve any easement in its March 17, 1986 indenture because no sidetrack in use was "presently existing." They finally argue that H.K. Porter could not convey any easement by quitclaim deed in 1994 because it no longer had an easement to convey.

A. Claims of Abandonment Before March 17, 1986

Appellants, relying on evidence that MPC stopped using the sidetrack in 1979 and stopped quarrying rock in 1981 and that H.K. Porter did not use the sidetrack, assert that the easement was abandoned by non-use and therefore did not exist in March, 1986 and could not be reserved in the March 17, 1986 deed. The fallacy of this argument is that no easement existed until 1986, and therefore there was no easement which could be abandoned. Until H.K. Porter conveyed the west tract on March 17, 1986 to West Lake, the entire property, including the sidetrack, was united in title under one owner, MPC, which was succeeded by H.K. Porter. An owner cannot have an easement over its own land. Denning v. Manley, 610 S.W.2d 51, 56 (Mo.App.1980); Ball v. Gross, 565 S.W.2d 685, 688 (Mo.App.1978). Neither H.K. Porter nor MPC could "abandon" or "extinguish" an easement which did not exist. An owner's use or non-use of its own property for any particular purpose cannot affect its future right to separate title and reserve an easement in the newly created servient tract.

B. Existence of Sidetrack "in Use" on March 17, 1986

Appellants next argue that no easement was created by the March 17, 1986 deed because no sidetrack existed which was being used. In the March 17, 1986 deed, H.K. Porter separated the title and conveyed the west tract to West...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
  • Phelan v. Rosener
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 28, 2017
    ...was specifically mentioned in the transfer. Three–O–Three Investments, Inc. , 622 S.W.2d at 739 ; Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc. , 985 S.W.2d 356, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998). The RMA is clear that it intends to create the Cliffview Lane easement for the present and future......
  • Baker v. Walnut Bowls, Inc.
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • February 11, 2014
    ...proof by itself is insufficient to establish abandonment. Id.; see Franck Bros., 301 S.W.2d at 812;Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Mo.App.1998) (“[a]n easement created by grant is not lost by non-user, no matter how long continued”).4 Therefore, Wal......
  • Creech v. Noyes
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • October 10, 2002
    ...the weight of the evidence, or the court erroneously declares or applies the law. Id.; See also Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 359 (Mo.App. E.D.1998). In our review, we accept the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the prevailing party and ......
  • Nolte v. Corley
    • United States
    • Missouri Court of Appeals
    • June 28, 2002
    ...easement has been established, the party challenging the easement has the burden to show abandonment. Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 361 (Mo.App.1998). Whether an easement has been abandoned is a question of fact. Id. An easement by grant is not lost by......
  • Get Started for Free
4 books & journal articles
  • 9.34 Transfer, Termination, and Abandonment
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 9 Easements and Party Walls
    • Invalid date
    ...transfer. See Beldner v. Gen. Elec. Co., 451 S.W.2d 65, 75 (Mo. 1970). See also: Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) Three-O-Three Invs. Inc. v. Moffitt, 622 S.W.2d 736, 739–40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 711, ......
  • Section 19 Transfer, Termination, and Abandonment
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Real Estate Fundamentals Deskbook Chapter 9 Easements and Party Walls
    • Invalid date
    ...of that transfer. Beldner v. Gen. Elec. Co., 451 S.W.2d 65, 75 (Mo. 1970). See also: Knox Cnty. Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 362 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998) Three‑O‑Three Invs., Inc. v. Moffitt, 622 S.W.2d 736, 739–40 (Mo. App. W.D. 1981) Stroup v. Johnson, 539 S.W.2d 7......
  • Section 13 Reservation or Exception
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Real Estate Fundamentals Deskbook Chapter 9 Easements and Party Walls
    • Invalid date
    ...or by exception is generally considered the equivalent of an express grant. Knox Cnty. Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Robins v. Wright, 53 S.W.2d 1046 (Mo. 1932). An easement is “reserved” when, by the terms of a grant, the grantor retains......
  • 9.17 Reservation or Exception
    • United States
    • The Missouri Bar Practice Books Real Estate Practice Deskbook Chapter 9 Easements and Party Walls
    • Invalid date
    ...or by exception is generally considered the equivalent of an express grant. See Knox County Stone Co. v. Bellefontaine Quarry, Inc., 985 S.W.2d 356, 360 (Mo. App. E.D. 1998); Robins v. Wright, 53 S.W.2d 1046 (Mo. 1932). An easement is "reserved" when, by the terms of a grant, the grantor re......