LITTLE (JOHNNY), ET AL. VS. HALL (RUTH), ET AL.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED: SEPTEMBER 25, 2009; 10:00 A.M.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2008-CA-001702-MR
JOHNNY LITTLE; AND
MARY LITTLE
v.
APPELLANTS
APPEAL FROM KNOTT CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE JOANN SPINKS COLEMAN, SENIOR JUDGE
ACTION NO. 01-CI-00285
RUTH HALL; PATTY ANN DECOURSEY;
FOREST DEAN HALL AND MIONI HALL,
his wife; ANDREA LYNN CARTER; RUBY
SHEPHERD; RUTH STURGILL; JANIE SLONE;
AND JUDY HALL WOOSLEY
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; VANMETER, JUDGE; LAMBERT,1
SENIOR JUDGE.
1
Senior Judge Joseph E. Lambert sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the Chief Justice
pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and Kentucky Revised Statutes
(KRS) 21.580.
VANMETER, JUDGE: Johnny Little and Mary Little appeal from the Knott
Circuit Court’s order granting permanent injunctive relief which barred them from
obstructing a road across their property. We affirm.
This appeal stems from actions taken by the trial court pursuant to this
court’s reversal and remand in a prior appeal involving all the same parties as this
appeal. We therefore set out the text of the prior opinion,2 in which a panel of this
court stated:
Johnny and Mary Little (Appellants) appeal from
an order of the Knott Circuit Court granting Ruth Hall,
Patty Ann Decoursey, Forest Dean Hall, Mioni Hall,
Andrea Lynn Carter, Ruby Sheperd, Ruth Sturgill, Janie
Slone, and Judy Hall Woosley (Appellees) a permanent
injunction and recognizing a prescriptive easement across
Appellants' property to a mountainside family cemetery.
Concluding the trial court failed to make the necessary
findings to establish a prescriptive easement, we reverse
and remand.
Appellees' family cemetery was established and
has been in continuous use since 1949. The roadway in
question has been used since that time for burials,
visitations and memorial services, and to clean and
maintain the gravesites. It has been traveled by cars,
trucks, a hearse, and a bulldozer. Burials took place in
1949, 1950, 1951, 1955, 1957, 1970, 1979, 1980, 1982,
and 1996.
Appellants acquired the roadway property in 1965.
Appellees continued to maintain the road and use it in a
manner consistent with travel to and from a cemetery
until it was blocked in 1997.
In 2001, Appellees sued Appellants to reopen the
road. On May 29, 2003, a temporary injunction was
entered against the Appellants ordering them to remove
all obstacles placed in the roadway. In November 2004,
2
Little v. Hall, Appeal No. 2007-CA-000267-MR, 2008 WL 682434 (March 14, 2008).
-2-
Appellants were found in contempt for not clearing the
roadway and ordered to do so by December 8, 2004. In
May 2006, this Court affirmed the contempt order.
Following an August 10, 2006, hearing, the Knott Circuit
Court found Appellees to have acquired a prescriptive
easement to use and maintain the roadway to access their
family cemetery and granted them a permanent
injunction allowing them to use the roadway for such
purposes. Appellants were ordered to remove all
obstructions within 45 days or pay $200.00 per day until
roadway was cleared. This appeal followed.
The law of prescriptive easements is generally
derived from the principles of adverse possession. Cole
v. Gilvin, 59 S.W.3d 468, 475 (Ky.App. 2001). In order
to obtain a right to a prescriptive easement, the party
seeking to establish the right must demonstrate adverse
use that is “actual, open, notorious, forcible, exclusive,
and hostile, and must continue in full force ... for at least
fifteen years.” Id. This Court stated the differing
standards for obtaining fee simple title to land by adverse
possession and for obtaining a prescriptive easement as
follows:
A private passway may be acquired by
prescriptive use although a right of way is not
strictly a subject of continuous, exclusive, and
adverse possession. It is sufficient if the use
exercised by the owner of the dominant
tenement is unobstructed, open, peaceable,
continuous, and as of right for the prescribed
statutory period.
Id. (quoting Pickel v. Cornett, 285 Ky. 189, 147 S.W.2d
381 (1941)). Further, if the right to use a passway is
permissive, then the existence of a prescriptive easement
“does not arise unless there has been some distinct and
positive act of assertion of right made clearly known to
the owner of the servient tenement.” Id. at 476.
The trial court made the following findings in
concluding the Appellees had obtained a prescriptive
easement:
-3-
The roadway in question leading to the
Hall family cemetery has been in continuous
use since the interring of David Hall in 1949.
The road has been used since 1949 for
burials, visitations and memorial services,
and to clean and maintain the gravesites.
The roadway has been traveled by the
hearse, trucks to deliver the headstones,
cars, trucks and a bulldozer on occasions.
This pattern of use continued through
and until May 10, 1965 when the property
was acquired by the Defendants, and then
continued through and until the Defendant
blocked the road in 1997. Throughout this
entire time, the road was used with a
frequency consistent with that to be expected
of a road to a family cemetery. Such a road
would not be expected to be used on a daily
basis, but rather would be used as needed for
funeral processions, visitations and
maintenance. The Court finds that during this
time the Plaintiffs [sic] family maintained the
road and kept it clear for travel.
There was testimony offered regarding
dogs running loose in the roadway, and game
chickens kept in the roadway. The Court finds
that the Plaintiffs nevertheless continued to use
the roadway to get to the cemetery, and
therefore the dogs and chickens in the roadway
did not alter the character or use of the roadway.
A prescriptive easement does not change the
ownership of the land, rather [it] provides the
right to the easement holder to pass over the
land. Therefore, the fact that the Defendants
[ sic ] dogs and chickens were in the roadway
did not mean that [the] Plaintiffs has [ sic ]
abandoned their easement as long as Plaintiffs
continued to use the roadway to access the
cemetery, and the Court specifically finds that
the Plaintiffs did continue to use the roadway in
-4-
a manner consistent with travel to and from a
cemetery.
The Court finds that the first time that the
Defendants objected to the Plaintiff’s use of the
roadway was when the trailer was placed on the
roadway in 1997. The Court therefore finds
that the Plaintiffs used the easement in an
unobstructed, open, peaceable and continuous
manner beginning in 1949 until 1997. The
Court therefore finds that the Plaintiffs obtained
a prescriptive easement by the end of 1965, and
have continued to use the roadway and
therefore maintain the right to a prescriptive
easement through and including 1997. By
filing this action in a timely manner, the
Plaintiffs have rightfully asserted their legal title
to a prescriptive easement to use the roadway to
access the private cemetery.
While the trial court makes ample findings to
conclude that the Appellees' use of the roadway was
unobstructed, open, peaceable, and continuous for the
fifteen plus years, it does not, as Appellants contend,
make findings that establish the Appellees used the road
under a claim of right. We therefore conclude that it is
necessary to remand this case to the trial court to make
additional findings of fact and conclusions of law
concerning the nature of the roadway's use.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the
Knott Circuit Court is reversed and remanded for
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
On remand, the trial court summarized its prior findings of fact before
finding that appellees’ testimony and conduct showed they had used the road
between 1949 and 1997 in the belief that they owned it and that the Littles had
never objected to appellees’ use of the road before blocking it with a mobile home
in May 1997. The court concluded appellees had established their claim of right to
-5-
the road through their testimony and conduct, including the burial of loved ones
“in a site accessible only by the roadway[.]” Further, appellees had used the road
“in an unobstructed, open, peaceable and continuous manner, as of right,” for
fifteen years before and fifteen years after the Littles acquired the property. Thus,
appellees had “acquired a prescriptive easement to use the roadway” to access their
family cemetery, and the court permanently enjoined the Littles from preventing
such use. This appeal followed.
On appeal, the sole issue is whether the trial court erred by finding
appellees used the road under a claim of right so as to acquire a prescriptive
easement across the property. We find no error.
Although the elements are similar, different estates are established by
adverse possession and easement by prescription. Lyle v. Holman, 238 S.W.2d
157, 159 (Ky. 1951). While adverse possession may allow one to obtain perfect
title to the exclusion of others, easement by prescription may be conditional and
restricted to particular uses and purposes, and the passage of time will not cause it
to ripen into a greater estate. Id. A claim of adverse possession requires exclusive,
continuous and hostile possession for every day of the fifteen-year statutory period.
Id. at 160. A claim of easement by prescription, by contrast, may be established if
the holder of the dominant tenement, to whom the easement right belongs,
exercises use that is “‘unobstructed, open, peaceable, continuous and as of right for
the prescribed statutory period.’” Id. at 159-60 (quoting Pickel v. Cornett, 285 Ky.
189, 147 S.W.2d 381, 382 (1941)). Such a continuous and uninterrupted use of a
-6-
passway for at least fifteen years gives rise to the presumption that the use was
under a claim of right. Cole v. Gilvin, 59 S.W.3d 468, 475 (Ky.App. 2001). See
also Ward v. Stewart, 435 S.W.2d 73, 75 (Ky. 1968); Lyle, 238 S.W.2d at 160.
The burden of showing that the use instead was merely permissive falls upon the
owner of the underlying servient estate. Lyle, 238 S.W.2d at 160 (citing Pickel,
147 S.W.2d at 382 (1941)); Cole, 59 S.W.3d at 475; Ward, 435 S.W.2d at 75.
Finally, if the easement right has extended over many years, “very slight evidence”
is sufficient to show the existence of a claim of right. Lyle, 238 S.W.2d at 160
(citing Smith v. Fairfax, 180 Ky. 12, 201 S.W. 454, 455 (1918)).
Here, the Littles offered no affirmative evidence to support their
burden of proving that appellees used the road by permission rather than under a
claim of right. Appellees, by contrast, satisfied the “very slight evidence” standard
by producing evidence that they continued using the road in a manner consistent
with a belief that they were entitled to do so indefinitely. From David Hall’s burial
in 1949 until the road was blocked by the Littles in May 1997, appellees
maintained and kept the road clear for travel. Even after appellants acquired the
property in 1965, appellees continued to use the road to access the cemetery, bury
their dead, and maintain and visit the gravesites. Appellee Forest Dean Hall
testified that he believed appellees “owned” the road after more than forty years of
traveling it.
Appellees thus used the road in an unobstructed, open, peaceable and
continuous manner, under a claim of right, for approximately sixteen years before,
-7-
and thirty-two years after, appellants obtained the property. By acquiring land
traversed by a road, appellants were chargeable with knowing that the road was
used under a claim of right. Blue v. Haner, 395 S.W.2d 762, 763 (Ky. 1965); Cox
v. Blaydes, 246 Ky. 121, 54 S.W.2d 622, 624 (1932); Wright v. Willis, 23 Ky. L.
Rptr. 565, 63 S.W. 991, 993 (1901). The trial court did not err by finding on
remand that appellees used the road under a claim of right and acquired a
prescriptive easement across the property.
The Knott Circuit Court’s judgment is affirmed.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF FOR APPELLANTS:
BRIEF FOR APPELLEES:
James W. Craft, II
Whitesburg, Kentucky
William Lewis Collins
Whitesburg, Kentucky
-8-
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.