Mueller v. Hoblyn
887 P.2d 500 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A servient estate owner's use of their land, even if inconsistent with an undeveloped and unused easement, is not considered adverse for the purposes of extinguishing the easement by adverse possession until the dominant estate owner demands the easement be opened and the servient owner refuses.
Facts:
- In 1963, the Englemans sold a parcel of land to REB, Inc., and granted REB an easement for a private road across the Englemans' remaining property for access to a highway.
- In 1969, the Englemans sold their remaining land (the servient estate) to Henry Mueller, subject to recorded easements. For access, REB and its successors used a separate dirt driveway, not the granted easement.
- Between 1969 and 1990, Mueller maintained boundary fencing across the easement, used the land for agricultural crops, and in 1977, drilled a water well within the easement's boundaries, which he later capped.
- In 1979 and 1981, REB subdivided its property and sold parcels to predecessors of Lawrence Coffee and Richard Hoblyn, with the deeds specifically describing the easement's location on Mueller's land.
- In 1990, after a survey confirmed the dirt driveway was not on the easement, Coffee and Hoblyn requested permission from Mueller to use the legally granted easement.
- Mueller refused their request, claiming that no one had ever used the easement and that he was using the land for his own purposes.
Procedural Posture:
- On July 11, 1991, Hoblyn (a dominant estate owner) filed an action against Mueller (the servient estate owner) in district court to quiet title to the easement.
- Mueller filed a counterclaim against Hoblyn and a third-party complaint against Coffee and other landowners with interests in the easement.
- The district court conducted a bench trial on May 24, 1993.
- The district court found that Mueller had terminated a 200-foot portion of the easement near his water well by adverse possession, but denied all other claims, leaving the rest of the easement intact.
- Multiple parties, including both Mueller and the dominant estate owners, appealed the district court's decision to the Supreme Court of Wyoming.
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 a servient estate owner's use of land burdened by an undeveloped and unused easement—by fencing it, cultivating it, and drilling a well upon it—extinguish the easement by adverse possession before the dominant estate owner makes a demand for its use?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Taylor
No. The servient estate owner's use of land burdened by an undeveloped and unused easement does not extinguish the easement by adverse possession until a demand for use is made and refused. The owner of the servient estate has the right to use their property in any way that does not interfere with the easement holder's rights. Where an easement has never been used, the servient owner's actions, such as fencing or farming, are not considered hostile or adverse because they do not interfere with an unexercised right. The prescriptive period for adverse possession against an unused, granted easement does not begin until the dominant owner demands the easement be opened and the servient owner refuses. In this case, the ten-year period for adverse possession began in 1990 when Coffee and Hoblyn demanded access and Mueller refused, so the claim fails.
Dissenting - Justice Thomas
Yes. Mueller's actions of fencing off the land, cultivating it with crops, and installing a well for over ten years were sufficiently open, notorious, and hostile to extinguish the easement through adverse possession. The majority adopts a narrow and questionable exception from New York law that creates an illogical disparity between the standard for acquiring fee title by adverse possession and the standard for extinguishing an easement in Wyoming. Mueller's continuous and inconsistent use of the land should have been sufficient to terminate the entire easement, not just a portion, under established principles of adverse possession.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a significant precedent in Wyoming property law by adopting the 'Castle Associates' rule for extinguishing unused easements. It creates a special, higher standard for adverse possession in this context, distinguishing 'paper' easements from those actively in use. This ruling protects the rights of dominant estate holders who have had no occasion to use their granted easement, shifting the legal timeline so that the adverse possession clock only starts upon a direct conflict (demand and refusal). Consequently, it becomes much more difficult for servient landowners to terminate undeveloped easements through their own long-term use of the land.
Unlock the full brief for Mueller v. Hoblyn