DARRELL BECKNELL AND RHONDA BECKNELL v. OWSLEY COUNTY AND OWSLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: DECEMBER 20, 2002; 10:00 a.m.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
C ommonwealth O f K entucky
C ourt O f A ppeals
NO.
2002-CA-000211-MR
DARRELL BECKNELL AND
RHONDA BECKNELL
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM OWSLEY CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE WILLIAM W. TRUDE, JR., JUDGE
ACTION NO. 00-CI-00040
OWSLEY COUNTY AND
OWSLEY COUNTY FISCAL COURT
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
GUIDUGLI, HUDDLESTON AND JOHNSON, JUDGES.
GUIDUGLI, JUDGE.
Darrell Becknell and Rhonda Becknell ("the
Becknells") appeal from a judgment of the Owsley Circuit Court in
their action to rescind a motion of the Owsley County Fiscal
Court.
We affirm.
On April 10, 2000, the Owsley County Fiscal Court
("Fiscal Court") passed a motion asserting that a passageway
running across the Becknells' property was a county road. The
passageway, which ran through a creek bed, was described by the
Fiscal Court as Reynolds Branch Road.
On April 18, 2000, the Becknells filed a complaint in
Owsley Circuit Court seeking an order rescinding the motion and
declaring the passageway to be a private thoroughfare. They
argued therein that the passageway was at all times a private
thoroughfare, and that the occasional user did so only with their
consent.
The matter was tried by deposition, and upon
considering the proof the circuit court rendered a judgment
finding that the passageway 1) was not a county road, and 2) was
a public passageway by virtue of prescription through adverse
use.
The Becknells' motion to alter or amend was denied, and
this appeal followed.
The Becknells now argue that the circuit court erred in
finding that the passageway was a public thoroughfare.
They
maintain that sufficient evidence was adduced upon which the
court should have concluded that the passageway was privately
owned, and that persons using it did so only with the consent of
the Becknells and their predecessors in interest.
They go on to
argue that the theory of prescriptive easement and/or adverse use
is not applicable to the facts at bar because persons using the
passageway did so with their consent.1
We have closely studied the record and the law, and
find no error in the trial court's determination that the
passageway is public.
While the record contains deposition
testimony supportive of each party's position, the dispositive
1
Fiscal Court failed to file a brief in this matter. This
failure could have been regarded as a confession of error
resulting in reversal of the judgment without consideration the
merits of the case. CR 76.12(8).
-2-
question is whether the trial court's findings are sustainable by
the record, i.e., whether they are clearly erroneous.
CR 52.01;
Alvey v. Union Inv., Inc., Ky. App., 697 S.W.2d 145 (1985).
Having examined the record, we must conclude that evidence exists
upon which the court could have reasonably concluded that the
passageway in question is public rather than private.
As the
trial court properly found, the majority of the testimony
indicated that the road had been in use by the general public for
several decades, and that a store and post office were once
located on the passageway.
This evidence, taken alone, forms a
sufficient basis upon which we may conclude that the circuit
court's findings were not clearly erroneous.
Nothing more is
required.
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of
the Owsley Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
No Brief filed on behalf of
Appellees
Kensall Robinson
Booneville, KY
-3-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
