Macios v. Hensley
| Decision Date | 15 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 64965,64965 |
| Citation | 886 S.W.2d 749 |
| Parties | John MACIOS, Sr. and Opal L. Macios, Plaintiffs/Respondents, v. Gregory HENSLEY and Janet Hensley, Defendants/Appellants. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
William B. Beedie, Farmington, for appellants.
Terry R. Rottler, Ste. Genevieve, for respondents.
Both parties appeal from a judgment arising over a dispute between landowners of recreational homesites at Goose Creek Lake development. We affirm in part and reverse and remand in part.
Plaintiffs acquired their land in 1971. Defendants purchased theirs in 1988. The plaintiffs developed their property over a long period of time. When they originally purchased the land the lake had not filled up and did not fully fill until 1986. From the time they acquired their land, plaintiffs utilized a strip of land to access the lake bed both as pedestrians and with vehicles. They removed rock from the lake bed for use on their property and they launched boats into the creek which later became the lake. When the lake was filling and became filled they continued to utilize the strip of land to access the lake for boat launching purposes and developed a boat ramp on the strip of land for that purpose. The strip of land involved is owned by the defendants and defendants' ownership extends outward to land now covered by the lake. In 1991 plaintiffs moved their floating boat dock from a position on the eastern portion of plaintiffs' land to a location on the strip of land owned by the defendants and extending into the lake over land owned by the defendants and covered by water. In 1992 plaintiffs anchored their pontoon boat on the west side of the boat dock over defendants' land making it extremely difficult for defendants to access the lake from their boat ramp or dock. Defendants erected trellises on the strip of land in front of plaintiffs' boat ramp and after suit was filed erected a chain link fence across the strip of land. They also physically moved plaintiffs' boat dock to a position off of defendants' land.
Plaintiffs sued on the basis that they had a prescriptive easement over the strip of land and that the erection of the fence interfered with their use of that easement. They also sought money damages for the interference with their easement and for damages for trespass from the movement of the floating dock. Defendants counterclaimed seeking (1) damages for trespass because of the location of the floating dock during 1992, (2) an injunction to preclude plaintiffs from utilizing defendants' land to launch or dock their boats, and (3) a quieting of title to the strip of land.
After trial the court decreed that plaintiffs had a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to the lake over the strip of land, enjoined defendants from interfering with plaintiffs use of the easement and ordering the fence removed, established the boundaries of the easement, determined that defendants had interfered with plaintiffs use of the easement, awarded damages of $3000 for that interference, awarded $1 damages for trespass arising from the moving of the boat dock, entered judgment against defendants on their counterclaim, and assessed costs against defendants. On motion for reconsideration the trial court deleted the award of damages for interference with the easement on the basis that the interference was temporary and no evidence of reduction in rental value had been adduced. Plaintiffs appealed from the elimination of the damage award. Defendants appealed from the rest of the judgment. 1
Our review is that set forth in Murphy v. Carron, 536 S.W.2d 30 (Mo. banc 1976) [1-3]. While defendants raise several contentions challenging the granting of the prescriptive easement we find none are supported by the evidence. The evidence establishes all the elements of a prescriptive easement for ingress and egress to the lake including the launching of boats from that easement. No benefit would be served by further discussion of that issue. We also find the record supports the delineation of the boundaries of the easement established by the court and we need not further discuss that matter. The evidence also establishes that the plaintiffs utilized the easement for the launching of boats and changing the launch ramp from gravel to concrete within the ten year period was not a change of the quality of the use but only a change of the degree of use and was therefore permissible. Orvis v. Garms, 638 S.W.2d 773 (Mo.App.1982) .
We next review the court's judgment denying defendants' relief on their counterclaim. The character and extent of a prescriptive easement is determined by the character and extent of the user during the prescriptive period. Lacy v. Schmitz, 639 S.W.2d 96 (Mo.App.1982) . An easement is a qualified right for a particular purpose and no greater use can be made of the easement than the use under which the user gained it. Id. In a prescriptive easement that use is gained by use for that purpose for the 10 year period prescribed. Whether an additional use can be made of an easement is determined by whether the additional use represents only a change in the degree of use or whether it represents a change in the quality of the use. Orvis v. Garms, supra at . If the change is in the quality of use it is not permissible. Courts have also stated the test is whether the proposed use will cast a substantial new burden on the servient estate. Id.
The plaintiffs acquired the easement by using it for ingress and egress to the lake bed and lake. They did not acquire it for docking purposes. Docking of a boat or boats over defendants' land is not of the same quality as entering or leaving the water. The one involves going across the land in a transitory manner; the other involves placing an obstruction on the land. The evidence demonstrates clearly that the dock was not located on defendants' land for the prescriptive period and that the land was not used for docking during that period. The lake did not fill until 1986. The evidence established that the plaintiffs' dock and boat affixed thereto created and imposed a substantial burden on the servient estate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgway v. Ttnt Development Corp.
...of the encroachment. To support Developers' argument that this is the appropriate measure of damages, they rely on Macios v. Hensley, 886 S.W.2d 749 (Mo.App.1994) and Mondelli v. Saline Sewer Co., 628 S.W.2d 697 (Mo.App.1982). We reject Developers' argument for two The first reason Develope......
-
Fletcher v. Conoco Pipe Line Co.
...sought to be ejected was in possession of the premises at the time of the commencement of the ejectment action." Macios v. Hensley, 886 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Mo.Ct.App.1994). In Macios, the court held that the defendants were entitled to pursue an ejectment action because the plaintiffs "were, b......
-
Barfield v. Sho-Me Power Elec. Coop.
..., Grider v. Tingle , 325 S.W.3d 437, 447 (Mo. App. 2010) ; Ogg , 142 S.W.3d at 809 ; Maasen , 133 S.W.3d at 520 ; Macios v. Hensley , 886 S.W.2d 749, 752-53 (Mo. App. 1994). Sho-Me and Tech argue that their use of the easements for telecommunications purposes did not physically interfere wi......
-
Maasen v. Shaw
...the weight of the evidence, unless it erroneously declares the law, or unless it erroneously applies the law." Id. See Macios v. Hensley, 886 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Mo.App.1994). 1. Rights of Use in Non-exclusive For their first point plaintiffs contend that the trial court erred in holding that ......
-
Exceeding the Scope of an Easement: "Expanded Use" Within a Single Cable.
...land of another, regardless of the degree of force used, even if no damage is done, or the injury is slight."). (103.) Macios v. Hensley, 886 S.W.2d 749, 752 (Mo. Ct. App. (104.) Id. (105.) See Kavanaugh v. St. Louis Traction Co., 105 S.W. 278, 282 (Mo. Ct. App. 1907) ("The owner of a domin......