Lyman v. Walls

• Decision Date: 08 November 1983
• Docket Number: No. 46089,46089
• Citation: 660 S.W.2d 759
• Parties: Harrison F. LYMAN, Jr. and Alice L. Bennick, as Trustees, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Melvin J. WALLS and Billie D. Walls, Husband and Wife, Defendants-Appellants.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

Page 759

660 S.W.2d 759

Harrison F. LYMAN, Jr. and Alice L. Bennick, as Trustees Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Melvin J. WALLS and Billie D. Walls, Husband and Wife Defendants-Appellants.

No. 46089.

Missouri Court of Appeals,

Eastern District,

Division Eight.

Nov. 8, 1983.

Lawrence J. Permuter, Marvin Max Klamen, Clayton, for defendants-appellants.

Claude C. Knight, St. Charles, for plaintiffs-respondents.

KAROHL, Judge.

Plaintiffs-respondents Harrison F. Lyman, Jr. and Alice L. Bennick, as trustees, brought an action to declare an easement across defendants-appellants Melvin J. and Billie D. Walls' property, to enjoin defendants from obstructing the easement, and for damages resulting from loss of crop sales or rental of plaintiffs' property. The trial court found that a prescriptive easement had been established, enjoined its obstruction and awarded plaintiffs $100 in damages and costs.

Defendants' sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in failing to determine that as a matter of law, plaintiffs' prayer for relief was barred by the doctrine of laches. As defendants have failed to carry their burden of proving prejudice, we affirm.

In a court tried case, we affirm the trial court's ruling unless it is against the weight of the evidence, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or erroneously declares or applies the law. Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

Defendants purchased their property in St. Charles County in 1961. Plaintiff Harrison Lyman purchased the property adjoining defendants' eastern boundary from Walter A. Knoernschild, in 1969. In 1970, plaintiff recorded an affidavit made by Mr. Knoernschild, which stated that for more than fifty years, he and others had used a private roadway across defendants' property to gain access to his property.

In 1978, defendants placed fencing and a barricade in the roadway, preventing plaintiffs' use of the road easement to gain access to their property. Plaintiffs filed their action in 1981.

Defendants' appeal does not contest the trial court's finding that plaintiffs and their predecessors had used the roadway for more than ten years prior to the filing of the action, in an open and notorious manner under claim of right and color of title adversely to defendants and their predecessors in title. In defendants' only point relied on they argue that plaintiffs filed Mr. Knoernschild's affidavit in 1970 without legal justification and waited over ten years to assert their claim, and thus their claim is barred by laches.

We need not decide the merits of defendants' arguments, however, as there was no proof of a fundamental requirement to sustain a successful defense of laches: prejudice resulting from delay.

Ordinarily the question of laches is a question of fact to be determined from all the evidence and circumstances adduced at trial. Obernay v. Chamberlin, 506 S.W.2d 446, 452 (Mo. banc 1974); Schaeffer v. Moore, 262 S.W.2d 854, 859 (Mo.1953). Invocation of laches requires that a party with knowledge of the facts giving rise to his rights delays assertion of them for an excessive time and the other party suffers legal detriment therefrom. Rich v. Class, 643 S.W.2d 872, 876-77 (Mo.App.1982); McDaniel v. Frisco Employes' Hospital Ass'n, 510 S.W.2d 752,...