The following links tell part of the story.?ÿ This is in Northeast Kansas, a stone's throw from Nebraska and Missouri.?ÿ Mr. Pyle has been a politician for many years and recently ran for Governor (and lost).?ÿ Should be interesting to find out what the Kansas Supreme Court will rule.
https://casetext.com/case/pyle-v-gall-3
?ÿ
edit:?ÿ OK, I exaggerated a bit.?ÿ This is within four miles of Nebraska, but considerably more distant from Missouri.?ÿ The land is located in the northeast quarter (Pyle) and northwest quarter (Gall) of Section 30, Township 01 South, Township 17 East of the Sixth P.M.?ÿ The claimed prescriptive easement would be less than a half-mile in length based on the location of the railroad strip.
The nearest urban area (cough,cough) is Padonia. Population 107.
I hope Pyle loses. He should never have been crossing the other's ground without discussing it with him to begin with. The fact he's been doing it for many years without speaking to his neighbor shouldn't be a benefit to him. It just makes him a bigger donkey.
I don't expect the supreme court will overturn the 2 AP rulings and Pyle will end up with an easement by necessity. Interesting how little weight the court placed on either survey. This is a good example of how much value boundary surveying services are providing in situations where there is a disputed boundary. Perhaps it would have been better to refuse to complete the boundary survey and at most provide graphical exhibits of the existing conditions and gathering facts without drawing a conclusion. I've noticed in the past few years questions have been raised regarding how ethical it is to complete boundary surveys in situations where a legal boundary is where it is "although a survey may show otherwise", a phrase used time and again by courts to indicate the worthlessness of surveyed lines in a dispute.?ÿ
I found this line most interesting, "Appellate courts review the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the prevailing party without reweighing the evidence or making credibility assessments."
This seems to be a significant difference from the approach of Massachusetts' appeals courts. I've never seen them state that any deference is given to either party of the dispute when reviewing a lower court ruling. They do give review in "a light most favorable to the the non-moving party" on motions for summary judgement, where facts are not in dispute.
hmmmm.....
???? ?????ÿ
In most cases that actually get litigated, the lawyer that knows the rules of civil procedure and the rules of evidence the best will usually fare much better for their client.
Appellate Courts review matters of law that were objected to by the losing party (procedural errors, etc). They do not rehash the entire case, including the "facts".
If a party objected to the facts, and preserved their objection in anticipation of losing the case, and those facts were material to the outcome, that's a different matter.
Courts are lazy. They will look for every trick in the book to speed things up while trying to maintain credibility and not issue bad (wrong) outcomes.
When a party moves for Summary Judgment, the court (judge) relies on the statements made in the pleadings (these are the facts, this is the law, this is how the court should rule based on the law) to make a determination.
Often times a judge will err on the side of caution and let the case proceed so as not to get it wrong. Other times the facts and law at issue are so clear, the court must rule a certain way.
Apparently, in the instant case, the Appeals Court found that the lower court did their job in finding and assessing the facts correctly with respect to the adverse possession claim.
I found this line most interesting, "Appellate courts review the underlying facts in a light most favorable to the prevailing party without reweighing the evidence or making credibility assessments."
This seems to be a significant difference from the approach of Massachusetts' appeals courts. I've never seen them state that any deference is given to either party of the dispute when reviewing a lower court ruling. They do give review in "a light most favorable to the the non-moving party" on motions for summary judgement, where facts are not in dispute.
this is often called the Substantial Evidence Rule, Appellate Courts typically defer to the trial court??s judgment of the facts unless the finding of fact at the trial level is obviously wrong. This is pretty standard practice of appellate courts and appellate bodies such as IBLA.
It is thought the trial court is in the best position to assess the credibility of the witnesses.
?ÿ
Lots of these loose arrangements/non-arrangements in farm country.?ÿ Usually they work themselves out.?ÿ When they go to court it's usually because other issues develop between the owners, as alluded to here.?ÿ But surveys are necessary. Can't have an adverse possession without a decision on where the boundary is/was.?ÿ Not much discussion of it here, but Judge obviously picked one survey over the other.
Interesting take on exclusivity of use for prescription.?ÿ Pyle doesn't seem to be piggybacking on anyone else's use other than the actual owner of land.?ÿ If someone else had an easement and Pyle was using it, then the owner would not necessarily know Pyle was an adverse user, hence the traditional exclusivity requirement.?ÿ Here, there's no question the owner knew and did nothing to stop it. Be interesting to see what highest court says.
But surveys are necessary. Can't have an adverse possession without a decision on where the boundary is/was.?ÿ Not much discussion of it here, but Judge obviously picked one survey over the other.
I wouldn't be so sure about surveys being necessary and the judge picked one over the other in this case. Two surveys were commissioned and offered as evidence, but they had (significantly) different outcomes (~17'). That doesn't help a judge much.
However, there are multiple references to the trial court hearing testimony from all three parties (Gall/Mueller, and Pyle) that the crop line was used for most of the history. Mueller even testified that the Gall fence was, "20'-25'" east of the crop line. (Probably the nail in Gall's coffin at trial.) Without seeing the surveys and how they arrived at their respective conclusions, I read this case as the judge relied heavily on the testimony of the parties, and probably considered the surveys an inconvenience.
?ÿ
Interesting take on exclusivity of use for prescription.?ÿ Pyle doesn't seem to be piggybacking on anyone else's use other than the actual owner of land.?ÿ If someone else had an easement and Pyle was using it, then the owner would not necessarily know Pyle was an adverse user, hence the traditional exclusivity requirement.?ÿ Here, there's no question the owner knew and did nothing to stop it. Be interesting to see what highest court says.
Your first two sentences work, and I'm not sure about your third.
The facts do not bear that there was a 3rd party asserting an easement of any kind. In fact the case mentions recreational trespass (more or less) of hunters & fishing.
From the case: "The district court thus erred when it found the Pyles had established a prescriptive easement across the Galls' field."
It seems as though the trial court and lawyers did a poor job evaluating exclusivity.?ÿ
From the case: ??Here, the Muellers stated-and Pyle confirmed-that Pyle was not the only person to routinely cross the Galls' land for agricultural purposes.?
According to the case, the Galls appear to be owner & landlords and Mueller's appear to be Galls' tenants, which apparently have the right to farm Galls' land. Is their right to farm an easement? I doubt it because they probably have a lease specific for farming. And an easement does not prevent a landlord or tenant from using their land.
Interestingly, the trial court found enough evidence of exclusivity to award adverse posession of Galls' land, but failed to accurately address how Pyle was to access his "new" land and adjacent land he already owned.
From the case: "At the evidentiary hearing, Dennis Pyle testified that he and the Muellers used the northern 60 feet of the Galls' property to access their respective crops."
It seems as though the lawyers failed to argue that the nature of the use of the right (prescriptive easement) was exclusive, which probably would have saved this case from appeal. Nobody else would have the right to use the north 60' to access Pyle's land/crops for the primary agricultural purpose.
From the case: "As we have noted, however, the Pyles also presented an alternative argument to the district court-claiming they had an implied easement by necessity to allow them to access their property."
Absent a settlement of sorts, I suspect the trial court and lawyers will address the exclusivity argument and the Pyles get their prescribed easement by properly vetting the evidence/facts/law.
If that fails, they Pyles will likely get their implied easement by necessity.
One of the driving doctrines of access to property, is the doctrine ??there is no such thing as land locked property?. Only property owners who have not pushed hard enough. (Aka spent enough money) Kind of like ??keep blowing up the balloon, til she pops?. So, all the courts are doing is determining ??where? it??s gonna pop. And, how wide, and if gates can be required.
N
?ÿ
?ÿ
It is interesting the extent to which these parties are willing to go over access to ~2 acres of land that are really difficult to "enjoy", from the Pyles perspective, when the Galls made an offer to buy said land.
Judge obviously picked one survey over the other.
Not obvious to me. The line chosen existed before either survey.?ÿ?ÿ
The district court found that the Pyles acquired the land up to the 2015 crop line by adverse possession?ÿ
Pyles had continuously and exclusively farmed the field to the crop line for over 15 years.
The Pyles' surveyor believed the boundary was 17 feet west of the Galls' surveyor's line and within 3 feet of the 2015 crop line.
?ÿ
@norm You are correct.?ÿ Rephrased, the court needed the surveys to determine whether an actual judicial dispute existed. In this case the location of the claimed line is granted by AP, so not necessary to decide which survey is correct.
But I don't see how a court could rule on AP if there is no evidence from a survey that the claimed line/area is being adversely possessed.?ÿ I think the claim depends on at least one survey opinion indicating a possession of an area not included in the claimants boundaries.
I agree that a survey exhibit may be helpful in depicting the situation. I do not agree that a boundary should be depicted until there is a settlement either by the owners or the court.?ÿ
@michigan-left My experience is that Judges want a survey or they will not even entertain the case; rather simply dismiss it. But there is a trend toward eliminating surveyors from the picture across the midwest, which I hope doesn't spread.?ÿ
Prescription or AP is against the one possessing the right of occupancy (possessor piece of title rights).?ÿ If AP granted to a tenant, the deed holder may eventually get the land back.?ÿ The appellate court must have decided that whatever type of lease was given to farm was not exclusive and deed holder still had occupancy rights, hence lease holder is using the road as an easement or via less than exclusive through the lease also.?ÿ In that case owner wouldn't necessarily know if it's his farmer or another using the road; but I think owner acknowledged he knew of the use and didn't stop it.
I don't like the necessity argument.?ÿ Why not make him build a bridge?
Probably more variety across jurisdictions in these laws relating to access than any other surveying related issue.?ÿ But does seem to be a trend across the States toward more consideration given to the one asking for access.
?ÿ
