Fix v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 2:13-cv-00083

In 1998, Geraldine Fix and the Murphy Family Trust purchased a 53-acre parcel west of Gila Bend for All Seasons Energy and built a manufacturing use there.
From 1998 to January 2010, the Fix Property was used as the primary access for operations until Union Pacific closed the crossing.
The Fix Property is bordered by a canal, private land, and UP tracks; access historically came via a 4.5-mile dirt road to State Route 85.
Union Pacific posted a Crossing Closure Notice on Oct. 7, 2008; after no responses, UP closed the Crossing on Jan. 6, 2010 by removing panels and earth.
Plaintiffs seek a prescriptive easement (Count 1) and a private way of necessity (Count 2); UP filed a counterclaim seeking a declaration that there is no such interest.
The court held that the Fixes have standing to sue as trustees of the Murphy Family Trust, denying UP’s standing challenge and denying UP’s strike motion on the affidavits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to sue on the claims	Fixes, via the Murphy Family Trust, own the property and have standing.	No evidence shows the Fixes own fee title; lack of standing.	Fixes have standing through the Murphy Family Trust; standing upheld.
Whether a prescriptive easement exists based on use of the Crossing	Fixes used the Crossing openly and continuously for over 10 years under a claim of right.	Use was not clearly proven as continuous, open, and hostile; disputed fact.	Issues of fact exist; both parties' summary judgment motions denied on Count 1.
Whether the private way of necessity exists given an adequate alternative	No adequate alternative access to the Property exists without the Crossing.	There is a 4.5-mile dirt road to an alternative route; questions about adequacy.	Material issues of fact as to adequacy of the dirt road; Count 2 remains for trial.
Adequacy of alternative access when monsoon flooding occurs	Alternate route may be impractical year-round due to flooding.	Alternative exists but may be impaired during certain seasons.	Genuine issues of fact; summary judgment denied for Count 2.

Paxon v. Glovitz, 203 Ariz. 63, 50 P.3d 420 (Ct. App. 2002) (prescriptive easement requirements and hostile use)
Curtis v. Southern Pac. Co., 39 Ariz. 570, 8 P.2d 1078 (1932) (private users may obtain a prescriptive easement over railroad crossings)
Ammer v. Arizona Water Co., 169 Ariz. 205, 818 P.2d 190 (Ct. App. 1991) (landowner must assert prescriptive rights; tenant cannot)
Tumacacori Mission Land Dev., Ltd. v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 228 Ariz. 100, 263 P.3d 649 (Ct. App. 2011) (railways are public highways for all purposes; limited by statutory construction)
Bickel v. Hansen, 169 Ariz. 371, 819 P.2d 957 (Ct. App. 1991) (absence of adequate alternative affects statutory way of necessity)
Siemsen v. Davis, 196 Ariz. 411, 998 P.2d 1084 (Ct. App. 2000) (burden on landowners to prove lack of adequate alternative outlet)
Tobias v. Dailey, 196 Ariz. 418, 998 P.2d 1091 (Ct. App. 2000) (alternative route must be reasonable and not impassable)
Solana Land Co. v. Murphey, 69 Ariz. 117, 210 P.2d 593 (1931) (necessity requires absence of adequate common law access)