Ky. Props. Holding LLC v. Sproul

• Decision Date: 22 September 2016
• Docket Number: 2014-SC-000368-DG
• Citation: 507 S.W.3d 563
• Parties: KENTUCKY PROPERTIES HOLDING LLC Appellant v. Donald SPROUL Appellee
• Court: United States State Supreme Court — District of Kentucky

507 S.W.3d 563

KENTUCKY PROPERTIES HOLDING LLC Appellant

v.Donald SPROUL Appellee

2014-SC-000368-DG

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

SEPTEMBER 22, 2016

Rehearing Denied February 16, 2017

COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT: Todd V. McMurtry, Hemmer DeFrank Wessels, PLLC

Elizabeth A. McCord, Gerner 85 Kearns Co., LPA

COUNSEL FOR APPELLEE: Ruth Helen Baxter, Crawford 85 Baxter, PSC

OPINION OF THE COURT BY JUSTICE HUGHES

This dispute concerns the status of Church Lane, an old road or passway in Gallatin County, and, more specifically, a disagreement among neighboring landowners as to the ownership of Church Lane. Donald Sproul contends that the road is owned by the county or alternatively is a public road, while Kentucky Properties Holding, LLC (hereafter "the Hornsbys")¹ argue that the road is their private property. After a bench trial, the circuit court determined that Church Lane is a private road, but on appeal the Court of Appeals reversed that judgment, finding that Church Lane is a public road. After careful consideration of the record, we reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the Gallatin Circuit Court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The Hornsbys are the owners of a 196-acre farm in Gallatin County, Kentucky. The farm is located on the southern portion of a strip of land which is bracketed by the Ohio River and Paint Lick Creek. North of the Hornsbys' farm is a 4.5 acre tract divided among four landowners who are no longer parties to this case.² At the northernmost tip of the strip of land is a tract of land belonging to Donald Sproul.

Due to the geographic orientation of the area, the owners of the "middle property" and Sproul must cross the Hornsbys' property to reach their land. Access to Sproul's property and the "middle property" is obtained by traveling across a gravel road known as Church Lane. Church Lane begins adjacent to the Paint Lick Baptist Church parking lot at Highway 1992, travels through the Hornsbys' farm before turning north near the Ohio River, continues on to intersect with the "middle property" and then traverses that property up to Sproul's land. On a marked aerial photograph agreed to by the litigants as a joint exhibit, Church Lane looks roughly like the capital letter "L" with the base or horizontal bar of the "L" dipping southward and being somewhat longer than the vertical bar of the "L." Virtually all of Church Lane is on the Hornsbys' property, the exception being a small portion of the road (the upper portion of the vertical bar of the "L") that traverses the "middle property" and seemingly ends at Sproul's tract.

In 2006, the Hornsbys erected a gate on Church Lane, near where the road intersects with Highway 1992. According to the Hornsbys, the Church Lane gate was necessary to bar entry to trespassers who were stealing, dumping trash, and otherwise doing damage to their property. While the Hornsbys provided their neighbors (Sproul's predecessors-in-interest and the "middle property" landowners) with the Church Lane gate code, they preferred that their neighbors use an alternate route.

That alternate route, Carolina Road, is a second gravel passway constructed by the Hornsbys across their property. Carolina Road is accessed from nearby Jackson Landing Road and proceeds northward across the Hornsby property, intersecting with Church Lane (within the horizontal bar of the "L") and providing an alternate access road for the Hornsbys' neighbors. As they had on Church Lane, the Hornsbys erected a gate on Carolina Road—this one at its intersection with Jackson Landing Road. When the Hornsbys gave their neighbors the code to the Carolina Road gate, they insisted that the neighbors access their land through the use of Carolina Road.³ Despite the Hornsbys' request, Sproul's predecessors-in-interest continued to use the Church Lane gate to access their property.

In October 2007, the Hornsbys filed a lawsuit in the Gallatin Circuit Court to obtain an order requiring the "middle property" owners and Sproul's predecessors-in-interest to keep the Church Lane gate locked. In December 2007, the circuit court entered a temporary injunction, requiring that the Hornsbys' neighbors cease and desist leaving the Church Lane gate unlocked or propped open.

Subsequently, Sproul purchased his relatives' property and began to develop it into a subdivision. To accomplish this, Sproul brought back hoes, bulldozers, and other large equipment onto his property, which the Hornsbys allege caused damage to Church Lane. Additionally, the Hornsbys argue that Sproul continued to leave the Church Lane gate open, creating the potential for trespassers to enter and damage their property.

In June 2011, the Hornsbys moved to amend their complaint to add Sproul as a named defendant. Additionally, the Hornsbys moved to dismiss the other named defendants due to their agreement to leave the Church Lane gate locked and to instead use the Carolina Road gate. Further, the Hornsbys filed a motion to modify and enforce the temporary injunction against Sproul. In their suit, the Hornsbys sought a permanent injunction, compensatory damages, and a declaratory judgment defining safe use of Church Lane by Sproul.

Sproul opposed the Hornsbys' requests, arguing that Church Lane was a county road and as such, the Hornsbys had no right to erect gates, narrow the roadway, or limit its use. After considering the arguments of both parties, the trial court issued a temporary injunction mandating the closing and locking of the Church Lane gate after Sproul's entrance and exit until the issue was resolved at trial.

During the ensuing February 2012 bench trial, the Hornsbys called a number of local residents to offer testimony about their knowledge of the private character of Church Lane. Gallatin County Judge Executive Ken McFarland testified that Church Lane is not maintained by the county and that the county had no plans to maintain the road in the future. Additionally, McFarland stated that he was unaware of any county records suggesting that Church Lane is a county road. McFarland's testimony was supported by that of Kenneth Stambaugh, one of the "middle property" owners, who testified that in the twenty-six years that he had owned his property, he had no recollection of the county taking steps to maintain Church Lane. Rather, according to McFarland, the neighbors were collectively responsible for maintaining Church Lane.

The Hornsbys also called Chris Gephart, a licensed surveyor who disagreed with Sproul's claim that Church Lane was a county road depicted in the 1883 Atlas.

Attorney Stephen Kenkel, who served as the closing agent when the Hornsbys purchased their farm, testified that prior to the purchase, he conducted a search and was unable to find records of any deeded easements, passways, or right-of-ways on what is now the Hornsbys' property.

Sproul similarly relied on the testimony of local witnesses to support his claim of the public nature of Church Lane.⁴ Kenny French, the former Judge Executive of Gallatin County from 2007-2010, testified that he had been a tenant farmer on what is now the Hornsby farm in the mid-1970s. Kenny French recalled that a school bus used to travel down Church Lane in the 1970s and that to facilitate the bus's route, the county had graded or graveled the road where the bus stopped to turn around and proceed back to Highway 1992. Additionally, French expressed his view that Church Lane had been maintained by the county for years.

However, in both his deposition and trial testimony, Kenny French noted that he only considered a portion of Church Lane to be a county road. During his deposition when asked to identify where the public or county portion of Church Lane ended, Kenny French noted that he believed that it ended at the intersection of Church Lane and Carolina Road. (As noted, this intersection was within the horizontal bar of the "L" formed by Church Lane.) French's view of Church Lane consisting of two portions, one private and the other public, was reiterated during questioning about county maintenance of Church Lane. When Kenny French added Church Lane onto the county maintenance list, he only added the portion previously referenced—the eastern portion of Church Lane ending at the intersection of Carolina Road. Further, during French's trial testimony, the Hornsbys referred him to the map that he had marked during his deposition and he reiterated that past a point on Church Lane he had never witnessed it be publicly maintained or alluded to as a county road.⁵

Sproul also offered the testimony of Kenny French's brother, Denny French, who is the pastor of the nearby Paint Lick Baptist Church. Denny French recalled that prior to the early-1990s there had been a family with school children who lived on what is now the Hornsby farm and that a school bus would travel down a portion of Church Lane to pick them up. Additionally, Denny French testified that the county removed snow from Church Lane once in the late 1970s and conducted culvert repair for the Mid-Valley Pipeline in the early 1980s. Sproul also called Gallatin County Attorney John Wright who testified as to his opinion that Church Lane is a public passway, based on his interpretation of the 1883 Atlas and his personal experiences.

To rebut the testimony of Denny and Kenny French, the Hornsbys called Larkin LeGrand. LeGrand, a former tenant farmer on Church Lane, testified that he rode the county school bus that serviced the area from 1985 to 1996. However, LeGrand denied that the bus had ever travelled down Church Lane; instead, the bus stopped at the parking lot of the Paint Lick Baptist Church and waited there to transport the children who lived in tenant houses on the farm.

After hearing the evidence, the trial court made detailed findings of fact which included the following determinations.

First, the trial court found that Church Lane was not the county road depicted in the 1883 Atlas. Second, the court found the county never formally adopted...