John E. Fuquay v. Susie Low
162 Idaho 373
| Idaho | 2017Background
- King Lane is a private road crossing parcels owned by the Kings (north) and Lows (south); the Fuquays own adjoining property that uses King Lane for access.
- Kings began improving King Lane in 1973 into an all-weather road and maintained gates; they grazed cattle across the lane.
- Fuquays purchased their property in 1977 and claimed continuous use of King Lane (vehicles, farm equipment) but discovered no recorded easement in 2014 after Kings installed iron gates.
- Fuquays sued (2014) for a prescriptive easement; district court issued and later denied preliminary relief, and summary judgment proceedings followed.
- District court granted summary judgment for the Kings and Lows (after reconsideration), holding Fuquays’ use was presumptively permissive and they failed to show hostile/adverse acts; Fuquays appealed.
- Supreme Court affirmed judgment for the Kings and Lows and awarded appellate attorney fees to the Kings and Lows (with one justice dissenting as to fees).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper presumption for use (adverse vs permissive) | Fuquays: absent evidence of origin, presumption should be adverse based on predecessor use | Kings/Lows: improvements by Kings starting 1973 create presumption of permissive use | Court: presumption of permissive use applied (Kings’ improvements trigger exception to adverse presumption) |
| Temporal starting point for presumption | Fuquays: roadway in use long before 1973, so adverse prescriptive rights vested earlier | Kings/Lows: Fuquays must prove continuous prescriptive-period use by predecessors to shift burden; record lacks that proof | Court: presumption of adverse use not triggered before Fuquays’ 1977 purchase; predecessors’ use was not shown continuous/uninterrupted |
| Requirement of hostile/adverse acts to convert permissive use | Fuquays: their use since 1977 and specific acts (placing mobile home, renters’ use) were adverse | Kings/Lows: permissive use continued; Fuquays never interfered with owners’ rights or put owners on notice of hostile claim | Court: Fuquays failed to show any hostile act or interference; use remained permissive, no prescriptive easement |
| Award of attorney fees on appeal under Idaho Code §12-121 | Fuquays: appeal was reasonable given factual disputes and long use | Kings/Lows: appeal merely rehashed district-court arguments and lacked new analysis or authority | Court: awarded fees to Kings and Lows; appellate filings repeated prior arguments without new support (one justice dissented as to fees) |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Blair, 130 Idaho 675 (discusses when proof of prescriptive elements shifts burden to servient owner)
- Hughes v. Fisher, 142 Idaho 474 (elements required to establish an easement by prescription)
- Simmons v. Perkins, 63 Idaho 136 (exceptions to adverse-use presumption: in-common use and owner-constructed way)
- Hodgins v. Sales, 139 Idaho 225 (general rule on presumption of adverse use when origin unknown)
- Backman v. Lawrence, 147 Idaho 390 (permissive use must be superseded by a new, hostile act to create prescriptive right)
- H.F.L.P., LLC v. City of Twin Falls, 157 Idaho 672 (presumption continues until hostile use is clearly manifested to servient owner)
- Hunter v. Shields, 131 Idaho 148 (easements by prescription are disfavored)
- Frantz v. Hawley Troxell Ennis & Hawley LLP, 161 Idaho 60 (attorney fees on appeal where appellant adds no new analysis)
- City of Boise v. Ada County, 147 Idaho 794 (standards for awarding attorney fees under §12-121)
- Rangen, Inc. v. Idaho Dep’t of Water Res., 159 Idaho 798 (awarding appellate fees where appeal repeats district-court arguments)