Jason John Thornock and Tracy Thornock v. Erick W. Esterholdt, as Trustee of the Erick W. Esterholdt Revocable Trust Dated August 6, 2009 and Jeanne M. Esterholdt, as Trustee of the Jeanne M. Esterholdt Revocable Trust Dated August 6, 2009 and John A. Reed, Iii, and Carolyn B. Reed and Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware Corporation and Pacificorp, an Oregon Company and Richard Dayton and Roberts Ranch and Reed Land & Cattle Co., Llp and Nk Cook Ranch, Llc and Frederic C. Reed as Trustee of the Frederic C. Reed Revocable Trust, 375 P.3d 750

Background

Jason and Tracy Thornock own a ranch in Lincoln County composed of two large fee parcels connected by a narrow ~1-mile, ~200-foot-wide strip of their land; Poison Creek Road crosses public (state and federal) land to connect the southern parcel to the northern parcel.
Thornocks have easements to use Poison Creek Road where it crosses private property to reach their southern parcel; the BLM classifies the federal portion between parcels as an open two-track available for recreational public use but requires permits/right-of-way for commercial use or maintenance.
After installing pivot irrigation on the northern parcel (2010, 2012) and beginning haying/grazing that required heavy equipment, Thornocks sought a private road across adjacent private land, alleging their northern parcel was landlocked or access via Poison Creek Road was substantially inconvenient.
An appointed expert estimated building a road across the Thornocks’ connecting strip would cost about $974,000 due to steep terrain and proximity to the Bear River.
The district court found Poison Creek Road is a public road, concluded the northern parcel therefore had direct access and that the access was reasonably convenient (including the possibility of obtaining permits for commercial use), and denied the private road request; Thornocks appealed.

Issues

Issue	Thornock's Argument	Defendants' Argument	Held
Whether Poison Creek Road (across state and federal land) is a public road	Poison Creek Road is effectively private between parcels because Thornocks gate/control access and restrict users; not a public road for statute purposes	The road is open to the general public over public lands (BLM/State characterize it as open to recreational public), so it is a public road	The court held Poison Creek Road is a public road; gatekeeping or use restrictions do not change its public character
Whether access via Poison Creek Road provides the legally adequate access needed to defeat a private road claim	Access must be a legally enforceable right appurtenant to the parcel and commercial-use restrictions mean access is inadequate	Direct access to a public road suffices; legally enforceable appurtenant rights are not required; permits address commercial use	The court held direct access to a public road that is convenient/reasonable precludes necessity for a private road; requirement to obtain commercial permits does not make access inadequate
Whether substantial inconvenience exists to justify private taking (necessity)	Winter condition, commercial difficulty, and reduced marketability create substantial inconvenience equivalent to necessity	Alternative public access is not obviously impractical or unreasonable; Thornocks can seek permits; marketability concerns are not a statutory basis	The court held Thornocks failed to show substantial inconvenience; preference for different or more marketable access is insufficient
Whether a natural barrier on applicant’s own land can support a private road claim	(Raised by defendants) Applicant cannot rely on barrier within own land to claim landlocking	(Respondent position) N/A here; court did not need to decide	The court did not address/decide this issue because it resolved the case on existence of public access

Key Cases Cited

Reidy v. Stratton Sheep Co., 135 P.3d 598 (Wyo. 2006) (roads over federal lands may be public roads; direct access to a public road makes "legally enforceable" inquiry irrelevant)
Voss v. Albany County Comm’rs, 74 P.3d 714 (Wyo. 2003) (distinguishes personal/temporary permits from transferable public access)
Pine Bar Ranch, LLC v. Luther, 152 P.3d 1062 (Wyo. 2007) (limited class users may show a road is not public)
McGuire v. McGuire, 608 P.2d 1278 (Wyo. 1979) (discussion of legally enforceable outlet to public road)
Miller v. Bradley, 4 P.3d 882 (Wyo. 2000) (a road may be public in parts and private in others; public portion controls access analysis)
Price v. Hutchinson, 340 P.3d 1002 (Wyo. 2014) (inconvenience must be substantial—functionally equivalent to necessity—to justify private taking)
Crago v. Board of County Commissioners, 168 P.3d 845 (Wyo. 2007) (private road statute protects against landlocking; necessity required for takings)