Kentucky Properties Holding LLC v. Sproul
2016 Ky. LEXIS 428
| Ky. | 2016Background
- Church Lane is a gravel passway providing access across the Hornsbys’ 196‑acre Gallatin County farm to a small “middle property” and to Sproul’s tract; most of the lane lies on the Hornsbys’ land.
- The Hornsbys installed gates (2006) and opened an alternate route, Carolina Road; neighbors were given gate codes but Sproul (and predecessors) continued using Church Lane.
- The Hornsbys sued (2007) to require the lane gate be kept locked; after litigation and a bench trial the trial court found (1) the western/northern portion was private, (2) the eastern portion had been a public road but was discontinued and reverted to private ownership before the Hornsbys’ 2005 purchase.
- The Court of Appeals reversed, holding the entire lane was a public road under KRS 178.116 and Bailey because Sproul needed access and had not consented to discontinuance; it remanded to determine width.
- The Supreme Court granted review, applied deferential factual review to the trial court’s findings, rejected the Court of Appeals’ statutory approach, and reinstated the trial court judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Sproul's Argument | Hornsbys' Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Church Lane is a county road | Church Lane is a county road / public road; county maintenance history supports that | Not a county road; no formal fiscal‑court adoption as county road | Not a county road (trial court findings affirmed) |
| Whether Church Lane (or portions) became a public road by prescription | Entire lane was publicly used/maintained and thus public | Only limited eastern portion had public maintenance/use; other portions private | Western/northern portions are private; insufficient evidence of public prescriptive use |
| Whether KRS 178.116 and Bailey mandate that lane remain public because Sproul needs access | KRS 178.116(b): road provides necessary access to Sproul, so discontinuance invalid | KRS 178.116 governs discontinuance only; predominately applies to formerly maintained portions and does not supplant prescriptive‑road law | Court of Appeals misapplied KRS 178.116 and Bailey; those do not establish public status initially |
| Whether the eastern portion was discontinued/abandoned under KRS 178.116 | Because it provides necessary access to Sproul, it cannot be discontinued | County maintenance ceased and alternate Carolina Road supplies practical access; thus the eastern portion was discontinued | Eastern portion had been a public road but was discontinued; not "necessary access" because practical alternate existed, so it reverted to private |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. Preserve Rural Roads of Madison Cty., 394 S.W.3d 350 (Ky. 2011) (clarifies effect of statutory discontinuance procedures once county discontinues a county road)
- Sarver v. Allen Cty., By & Through Its Fiscal Court, 582 S.W.2d 40 (Ky. 1979) (abandonment/nonuse standard and comparison to prescriptive period)
- Ewen v. Commonwealth, 39 S.W.2d 969 (Ky. 1931) (recognition that a road may become public by prescription)
- Louisville & N.R. Co. v. Ward, 149 S.W. 1145 (Ky. 1912) ("necessary access" means practical, not absolute, necessity)