Hollars v. Church of God of the Apostolic Faith, Inc.
596 S.W.2d 73, 10 A.L.R. 4th 495, 1980 Mo. App. LEXIS 2496 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A statute authorizing a private road of necessity for land "not bordering upon a public road" is strictly construed and does not permit the establishment of such a road when a public road borders any part of a single tract of land, even if internal geological features make a portion of that tract inaccessible by vehicle.
Facts:
- Plaintiffs own 40 acres of land in the Ozarks.
- A public road runs along the northern boundary of plaintiffs’ 40-acre property.
- A significant geological feature, described as a "hollow" or "ravine," runs in an east-west direction, dividing plaintiffs’ property approximately in half.
- This hollow prevents vehicles from traveling between the northern and southern portions of plaintiffs’ property.
- Approximately 16 to 17 acres of the 20-acre southern portion of plaintiffs' property are tillable and used by plaintiffs to raise tomatoes and corn.
- No public road provides direct access to the southern half of plaintiffs’ property.
- To access their southern acreage, plaintiffs previously used a public road along the east side of defendant's property and then crossed through defendant’s property.
- Defendant sought to prevent plaintiffs from continuing to pass through its property.
- Evidence indicated it would cost $3,500 to construct a road across or over the hollow on plaintiffs' own property.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiffs filed an action in the trial court (court of first instance) seeking to establish a private road of necessity over defendant's property under § 228.340, RSMo 1969.
- The trial court found that the hollow dividing plaintiffs' property was "impassable" and that it would not be "reasonable nor practical" to build a roadway across it.
- The trial court entered a judgment establishing a private roadway of necessity from the southern portion of plaintiffs’ property, across defendant’s property, to a public road.
- Defendant appealed this judgment to the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Missouri Statute § 228.340, allowing for a private road of necessity to land "not bordering upon a public road," permit the establishment of such a road when an internal geological feature on a single tract of land makes one portion of that tract inaccessible by vehicle from a public road that borders another portion of the same tract?
Opinions:
Majority - Prewitt, Judge
No, Missouri Statute § 228.340 does not permit the establishment of a private road of necessity when a public road borders any part of a single tract of land, even if internal geological features make a portion of that tract inaccessible by vehicle. The court emphasized that the statute allowing a private road of necessity should be strictly construed. A literal application of the statute denies the plaintiffs' claim because a public road passes "through or alongside" their land. The court distinguished Wiese v. Thien, a precedent where a river divided a farm into two effectively separate tracts, allowing for a road of necessity, stating that the plaintiffs' 40 acres should be considered one single tract. The court reasoned that allowing a roadway of necessity in this situation would effectively change the statutory language to permit a private road because a vehicle cannot travel from one portion of the same tract to a public road, which is not the statute's intent. The statute's function is to apply as written, providing egress and ingress only to land that does not border upon a public road. The court cited precedents and noted that several decisions under similar statutes have denied relief where access was limited due to geographic conditions within a single tract.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the strict interpretation of statutes granting private roads of necessity. It establishes that a public road bordering any part of a single property generally precludes the creation of a private road of necessity, even if internal geographical features make portions of that property inaccessible. The decision underscores the judiciary's role in applying statutes as written, rather than interpreting them expansively to address internal property access challenges. This ruling is significant for landowners in Missouri, as it limits the circumstances under which a private road of necessity can be claimed, placing the burden of internal access solutions on the landowner unless the property is truly landlocked from public roads.
