Moon Lake Ranch v. Gambill
A-15-785
| Neb. Ct. App. | Feb 21, 2017Background
- Moon Lake Ranch (owned by Hill sisters) and Judy Miller claimed long-term use of an unimproved "Trail Road" crossing land now owned by Richard and Shirley Gambill and Gudgel Land Corp.; use dated to the 1960s by the Hills and to the 1960s–1969 by Miller and tenants.
- Plaintiffs sought (1) declaratory judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement for ingress/egress and cattle-driving and (2) a permanent injunction barring Gambills from interfering.
- Gambills bought the property in 2001, posted No Trespassing signs, and in February 2013 sent letters threatening criminal prosecution; use ceased thereafter.
- District court granted summary judgment recognizing a prescriptive easement (15 feet each side for vehicle access; 75 feet each side for cattle) based on open, continuous, adverse use for the 10-year prescriptive period; denied the injunction.
- Gambills appealed, challenging evidentiary exclusions and the prescriptive-easement ruling; Moon Lake Ranch and Miller cross-appealed denial of the permanent injunction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether grant of prescriptive easement was appropriate | Moon Lake Ranch/Miller: long, open, continuous, adverse use since 1960s supports easement | Gambills: factual disputes and evidence show use was permissive or not continuous; evidentiary problems for plaintiffs | Court affirmed: prescriptive easement established by clear, convincing evidence; use open, continuous, adverse, exclusive, for 10+ years beginning in 1960s |
| Admissibility of certain affidavits/deposition excerpts | Gambills: excluded evidence (Anderson affidavit, deposition portions, unsworn letters) should have been admitted | Plaintiffs: foundational, hearsay, or jurat defects justified exclusion | Court held exclusions were proper under Neb. evidence and affidavit rules (lack of foundation, hearsay, missing jurat) |
| Effect of Gambills’ post-2001 conduct (signs, letters) on prescriptive period | Gambills: posting signs and revoking permission defeated prescriptive claim | Plaintiffs: prescriptive period had already run before 2001; post-2001 acts too late | Court held: prescriptive period vested before Gambills’ 2001 purchase and prior permission revocations; post-2001 actions irrelevant to established prescriptive right |
| Whether permanent injunction was required after judgment | Moon Lake Ranch/Miller: Gambills’ threats of prosecution impeded use and justify injunction | Gambills: injunction unnecessary after easement adjudicated | Court held: injunction unnecessary because plaintiffs obtained adequate legal remedy (recognized easement); denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Feloney v. Baye, 283 Neb. 972, 815 N.W.2d 160 (2012) (elements and standards for prescriptive easement; requires clear, convincing, satisfactory proof)
- Teadtke v. Havranek, 279 Neb. 284, 777 N.W.2d 810 (2010) (burden and quality of proof for prescriptive rights)
- Svoboda v. Johnson, 204 Neb. 57, 281 N.W.2d 892 (1979) (open, continuous, unmolested use raises presumption of claim of right; owner must prove permissive use)
- Biegert v. Dudgeon, 213 Neb. 617, 330 N.W.2d 897 (1983) (continuity of use need not be constant occupation; use adapted to land's nature suffices)
- Werner v. Schardt, 222 Neb. 186, 382 N.W.2d 357 (1986) (plain-view use is open and notorious for prescriptive purposes)