Bateman v. Platte County, 2012 Mo. LEXIS 89

In 1980 Bloom granted three contiguous street and right of way easements over BP-I to access Mace Road, with rights extending to Bloom’s successors and assigns.
The BP-I plat (1980) dedicated streets to public use, but Bloom did not sign the plat.
The BP-II plat (1984) subdivided Bloom’s property, depicted a street from BP-I to BP-II, and also dedicated streets to public use without Bloom’s signing.
In 1985, the BP-II plat was amended to rededicate a modified BP Lane to public use, recorded October 3, 1988.
In 2005 a developer sought to plat a new subdivision and use BP Lane as a public road; Bateman objected, and in 2006 Platte County determined BP Lane was within public right‑of‑way.
Bateman filed suit July 7, 2006 seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, contending BP Lane was never legally dedicated to public use because easement owners never consented.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Statute of limitations applicable	Bateman asserts no 516.010 bar.	County contends 516.010 bars claims.	Waived; affirmative defense not properly pleaded.
BP Lane’s status as private or public road	BP Lane remained private; easements could not be extinguished without consent.	BP Lane became public via statutory/common law dedication or prescriptive easement.	BP Lane remains private; no valid dedication or public use established.

City of Sarcoxie v. Wild, 64 Mo.App. 403 (1896) (private easement cannot be dedicated to public use without consent)
Saladin v. Jennings, 111 S.W.3d 435 (Mo.App.2003) (plat interpretation; dedication must be explicit)
Tinnes v. Brand, 248 S.W.3d 113 (Mo.App.2008) (common law dedication requires intent, acceptance, and use)
Phillips v. Sommerer, 917 S.W.2d 636 (Mo.App.1996) (prescriptive easement requires ten years’ adverse use)
Reynolds v. Carter County, 323 S.W.3d 447 (Mo.App.2010) (statute of limitations defenses must be pleaded)