Kentucky Properties Holding LLC v. Donald Sproul
2014 SC 000368
| Ky. | Feb 15, 2017Background
- Church Lane is a gravel passway running mostly across the Hornsbys' 196-acre farm in Gallatin County; a short upper segment crosses a separate 4.5-acre “middle property” and reaches Sproul’s land.
- The Hornsbys installed gates (2006) on Church Lane and on an alternate private route, Carolina Road; neighbors were given gate codes and asked to use Carolina Road, but Sproul (and predecessors) continued using Church Lane.
- The Hornsbys sued to require locking the Church Lane gate; the trial court found Church Lane not a county road, concluded most of it was private, and held an eastern portion had been public but abandoned/reverted to private under KRS 178.116.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the entire road was public as a matter of law based on Bailey and KRS 178.116 because it provided necessary access to Sproul.
- The Supreme Court granted review, deferred to the trial court’s factual findings, and reversed the Court of Appeals, reinstating the trial court judgment that the western/northern portion is private and that the eastern portion was a discontinued public road that reverted to private ownership.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Sproul) | Defendant's Argument (Hornsby) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Church Lane is a county road | It is a county road (on historic maps and maintained by county) | Not a county road — fiscal court never formally adopted it | Not a county road (trial court findings upheld) |
| Whether Church Lane (by prescription) is a public road | Public prescriptive user and some county maintenance made it public | Use/maintenance was limited; much of road lacked public use/maintenance | Western/northerly portion not proven public by prescription; trial court facts not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the eastern portion remains a public road (KRS 178.116 necessary-access test) | Road provides necessary access to Sproul so it cannot be discontinued | An alternate private route (Carolina Road) supplies practical access; no practical necessity for Church Lane | Eastern portion had been public but was discontinued/abandoned under KRS 178.116(1); reverted to private |
| Whether Bailey v. Preserve Rural Roads and KRS 178.116 required treating the whole road as public | Bailey/KRS 178.116 mandate keeping roads open when alternate-access landowners object | Bailey/KRS 178.116 do not determine initial public status; prescriptive-law governs establishment | Bailey/KRS 178.116 were misapplied; they do not supplant prescriptive standard — Court of Appeals erred |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Preserve Rural Roads of Madison Cty., 394 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2011) (addressed effect of county discontinuance and KRS 178.116(4) on gating a former county road)
- Sarver v. Allen Cty., By & Through Its Fiscal Court, 582 S.W.2d 40 (Ky. 1979) (abandonment/nonuse and 15‑year prescriptive considerations for public passways)
- Ewen v. Commonwealth, 39 S.W.2d 969 (Ky. 1931) (recognizing public roads can be established by prescription)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co. v. Ward, 149 S.W. 1145 (Ky. 1912) (defines “necessary” as practical necessity in access statutes)
- Williams v. Render, 255 S.W. 703 (Ky. 1923) (practical necessity for passway where alternate route is circuitous/unreliable)
- Goose Creek Lumber Co. v. White, 294 S.W. 494 (Ky. 1927) (practical necessity where existing routes impracticable or unreliable)