Another interesting WY public access case

[Gerald Martin]

However the courts end up deciding in this case the public isn’t going to be gaining access to any of those BLM sections except through an invitation from the landowner (s) or by helicopter or airplane.

 

[Forkyfinder]

Just a hunch, but i think this case could be significant in terms of the public for future easement strategies for landowners and the intrepretation of existing easements in courts. Or the OP might have skipped posting it.

Maybe some folks should just worry about their own tag.

 

[cgasner1]

So where is the line? We have a pile of easements into structures and stuff at work I guarantee you I can find some that go thru public. Well if my employer doesn’t care if I have a gun in the truck can I just pull off and take some vacation and go hunting for a few hours? The entire point of the easement is to access his property in my opinion anything other than that would be trespassing on the road leading to the public.

 

[TOGIE]

So where is the line? We have a pile of easements into structures and stuff at work I guarantee you I can find some that go thru public. Well if my employer doesn’t care if I have a gun in the truck can I just pull off and take some vacation and go hunting for a few hours? The entire point of the easement is to access his property in my opinion anything other than that would be trespassing on the road leading to the public.

the line is where the easement and courts interpretation of it says it is, not where your opinion says it is.

if grantors aren't happy with their easements that's their problem.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So where is the line? We have a pile of easements into structures and stuff at work I guarantee you I can find some that go thru public. Well if my employer doesn’t care if I have a gun in the truck can I just pull off and take some vacation and go hunting for a few hours? The entire point of the easement is to access his property in my opinion anything other than that would be trespassing on the road leading to the public.

The entire point of the easement is for the other landowner to access his property. Thats correct. That doesnt extend to property that isnt his thats not under the easement (the blm/state land).

Authorizing a utility to conduct maintenance in property they dont own is different than an access easement. Utilities need easements on public land, not just private land.

In the event theres a road that passes through public and private - do you go and look up if the easement on the road grants access to the public land?

 

[cgasner1]

The entire point of the easement is for the other landowner to access his property. Thats correct. That doesnt extend to property that isnt his thats not under the easement (the blm/state land).

Authorizing a utility to conduct maintenance in property they dont own is different than an access easement. Utilities need easements on public land, not just private land.

In the event theres a road that passes through public and private - do you go and look up if the easement on the road grants access to the public land?

So I should be able to drive into public land also

 

[seeth07]

The real miss here is that we missed a great opportunity to work with a willing seller landowner to unlock a lot of public land acreage for public land use. Many ways it could have gone yet I wonder why it didn't get the attention like this is now

 

[TOGIE]

The real miss here is that we missed a great opportunity to work with a willing seller landowner to unlock a lot of public land acreage for public land use. Many ways it could have gone yet I wonder why it didn't get the attention like this is now

buying a 13,000+ acre ranch to unlock 16k+ of public is a really bad dollars to acres gained ratio

and really, i'm not sure i see your point here anyway

this easement and issue has nothing to do with gaining access for the public, anyone that thinks that is an idiot.

 

[Forkyfinder]

So I should be able to drive into public land also

If there's an easement granting you (specifcally you and not a corporation) access to other property and the road goes through public land with and the road on public is legally drivable - sure.

If there was an easement for the BLM land stated that he couldnt leave the road, id see your point. No such easement with the public land is noted. The easement doesnt and cant control property not owned by the landowner.

Do you verify every easement on every road you travel that goes through public and private before hunting?

 

[cgasner1]

If there's an easement granting you (specifcally you and not a corporation) access to other property and the road goes through public land with and the road on public is legally drivable - sure.

If there was an easement for the BLM land stated that he couldnt leave the road, id see your point. No such easement with the public land is noted. The easement doesnt and cant control property not owned by the landowner.

Do you verify every easement on every road you travel that goes through public and private before hunting?

No point in checking easements on national forest when you’re not pushing issues. May as well leave the gate open on your way in also

 

[seeth07]

buying a 13,000+ acre ranch to unlock 16k+ of public is a really bad dollars to acres gained ratio

and really, i'm not sure i see your point here anyway

this easement and issue has nothing to do with gaining access for the public, anyone that thinks that is an idiot.

Correct but an easement could of been purchased for that road to be usable by the public to reach it

 

[TOGIE]

Correct but an easement could of been purchased for that road to be usable by the public to reach it

Maybe in rare cases sure. I think you vastly overestimate the willingness of all parties involved, including the ranches previous owners and the two other current grantees, to just open the flood gates of the easement.

Not sure I’d call it a missed opportunity. Maybe a missed fantasy.

 

[npaden]

I think a lot of folks (including myself) just don't really understand the intricacies of access easements.

I think they could have an easement that said that you had to wear a pink shirt to drive on that road if they wanted to. Probably state blood relatives or accompanied by a certain person or all kinds of different things. The one on my property that was in place when I purchased it says ATV and horseback only.

Are these enforceable? Are they reasonable? I guess that's for a court to decide.

If my easement said they had to wear a pink shirt to drive on the easement across my land, I guess they could take the pink shirt off while they were on public land then put the pink shirt back on when they were on my land again.

The ingress and egress clause isn't so cut and dried. It is not a shirt you can take on and off, you are either using the road for ingress and egress or not.

It would be helpful for their case if they could show that the guys doing the hunting never even made it to the guys property or not. Pretty cut and dried that they were not using it for ingress and egress if they didn't even go to his cabin. That's not just a matter of stopping to hunt along the way.

I'm curious how this turns out.

 

[TOGIE]

the intricacies of access easements are irrelevant to one thing: this is a landowner trying to assert exclusivity over public lands. no matter how much they say otherwise, that's exactly what's going on here. not much will be able to change my mind on that.

and they may win, legitimately and fairly, in accordance with the law. that won't bother me.

but that doesn't change anything about their motivations to me. they're cut from the same cloth as eshelman as far as i'm concerned.

 

[SAJ-99]

We certainly don’t have all the info. This sounds like an easement of necessity. Sure they could have put things into the contract, like you have to drive the easement in a pink dress, and it could’ve been agreed to, but i would guess the court would see it as an unnecessary burden with little material relevance to the purpose of the easement. Not putting on the pink dress might be a breach of the contract but where is the damage, particularly in regard to the necessity? The judge will sort it out.

 

[npaden]

Not putting on the pink dress might be a breach of the contract but where is the damage, particularly in regard to the necessity? The judge will sort it out.

That's going to be the part that will be the most telling. The previous owner of my property took the landowner using the easement to court over them not following the terms of the easement (i.e. horseback and ATV). From what I've been told, the judge told them that they needed to follow the terms of the easement and that was about it. No penalties or anything like that. They are still not following the terms of the easement so I could take them to court but not exactly sure what it would accomplish other than creating animosity.

 

[mevertsen]

That's going to be the part that will be the most telling. The previous owner of my property took the landowner using the easement to court over them not following the terms of the easement (i.e. horseback and ATV). From what I've been told, the judge told them that they needed to follow the terms of the easement and that was about it. No penalties or anything like that. They are still not following the terms of the easement so I could take them to court but not exactly sure what it would accomplish other than creating animosity.

Is it possible to meet with the other landowner to modify the terms of the easement? I understand not making waves, but could doing nothing actually cause problems for you in the future?

 

[SAJ-99]

That's going to be the part that will be the most telling. The previous owner of my property took the landowner using the easement to court over them not following the terms of the easement (i.e. horseback and ATV). From what I've been told, the judge told them that they needed to follow the terms of the easement and that was about it. No penalties or anything like that. They are still not following the terms of the easement so I could take them to court but not exactly sure what it would accomplish other than creating animosity.

Horses and ATVs are obviously different than "wearing a pink dress". Easy to see how the former might create damage. The latter doesn't have a real point. The "blood relative" rule typically comes about to limit the transfer of the right to use the easement. I'm sure it gets broke all the time with little consequence. I would think there is no way the judge justifies the limit of the access to public lands in this case. Might as well have included a clause to limit access to the Moon. But just my guess.