Dean and Martha Lowe v. Joseph C. and Joyce C. Richards
15-0718
| W. Va. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Hegyi Trust sued the Lowes (petitioners) for declaratory and injunctive relief to access a 25‑acre hunting parcel via a dirt path called the “Old Post Road” that crosses the Lowes’ property; the Trust sought recognition of an easement and related relief.
- The Lowes counterclaimed and filed third‑party claims against Joseph and Joyce Richards (neighbors); boundary/location disputes between parcels and state line questions were central.
- An eight‑day jury trial produced verdicts: the jury found a prescriptive easement in favor of the Hegyi Trust (11‑foot width), adopted the Trust’s boundary plat (Geertsema 1997), denied adverse‑possession claims by the Lowes, and awarded the Richards 1.8 acres by adverse possession. No monetary damages were awarded.
- The circuit court entered a final order ordering ejectment from Trust and Richards lands as shown on specified plats and requiring removal of obstructions to the 11‑foot lane (with limited exceptions).
- The Lowes moved to arrest judgment / set aside the verdict and sought a new trial; they appealed after the circuit court denied relief. The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hegyi Trust) | Defendant's Argument (Lowe) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Joinder/indispensable parties (beneficiaries) | Trustee may sue for the trust; beneficiaries are not indispensable; court can render justice without them | The Trust is a "dry" trust after settlor's death; beneficiaries are indispensable and must be joined | Court: Beneficiaries not indispensable; trustee properly sued on trust’s behalf; no dismissal error |
| 2. Sufficiency of evidence for prescriptive easement & boundary | Extensive witness use, historical maps, and surveyor Geertsema supported continuous, open, and adverse use and the Trust’s plat | Lowes challenged survey methods, scope of permitted use, and argued permission for early use negated prescriptive rights | Court: Evidence sufficient; jury could credit Trust’s witnesses and Geertsema; prescriptive easement and boundary verdict upheld |
| 3. Expert testimony & evidentiary rulings (Geertsema, excluded Black) | Geertsema qualified as expert despite not being Virginia‑licensed; his methods and experience aided the jury; alternate‑access evidence irrelevant | Lowes attacked Geertsema’s qualifications/methods and sought to introduce Black to show alternate access (way of necessity) | Court: Admitted Geertsema under Rule 702; excluding Black not an abuse because Trust abandoned easement‑by‑necessity claim and alternate access was irrelevant to prescriptive claim |
| 4. Agreed order limitations / witness testimony & sequestration | Testimony about Lowes’ conduct toward beneficiaries during the injunction period was admissible because agreed order only barred admission of the injunction’s grant, not conduct; beneficiaries properly permitted to remain after testifying | Lowes argued the agreed order barred such testimony and that beneficiaries should not remain in courtroom | Court: No abuse of discretion; testimony complied with order; Rule 615 allows court to permit certain witnesses to remain; sequestration protections preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Durfee v. Duke, 375 U.S. 106 (clarifying that resolution of interstate boundary disputes between private parties is not binding on states)
- Alkire v. First Nat. Bank of Parsons, 197 W.Va. 122 (standard for appellate review when evidence is allegedly insufficient)
- O'Dell v. Stegall, 226 W.Va. 590 (standards for establishing prescriptive easement: adverse, continuous, open and notorious)
- Tennant v. Marion Health Care Found., Inc., 194 W.Va. 97 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard for jury instructions)
- Dixon v. Am. Indus. Leasing Co., 157 W.Va. 735 (factors for determining whether absent parties are indispensable)