Paw Paw Island Land Co. v. Issaquena & Warren Counties Land Co.
51 So. 3d 916
| Miss. | 2010Background
- PPILC claims a prescriptive easement over a road crossing IWCLC land to Paw Paw Island, which sits on the Mississippi River in Louisiana.
- The island was formed when the Mississippi River was diverted in 1935, isolating it from the mainland and tying access to land routes via ATCO and later IWCLC’s property.
- The road to the island was historically developed and maintained by timber companies and hunting clubs, with intermittent permissions and neighborly courtesy.
- A low-water bridge connects Paw Paw Chute to the island; high river levels cut off land access for about six months annually.
- PPILC later sought to confirm a prescriptive easement and to relocate a boat ramp and parking area on IWCLC land, while IWCLC sought to relocate road segments and build houses.
- The Warren County Board of Supervisors intervened by demanding gates be opened for public access, leading to consolidated litigation in chancery court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the chancellor properly applied prescriptive-easement elements. | PPILC argues elements met, including hostile use and ownership claim. | IWCLC contends elements not proven, especially hostility and ownership. | No; hostility and claim-of-ownership not proven; exclusivity lacking, but other elements fail. |
| Whether exclusive use was proven under prescriptive easement standards. | PPILC asserts exclusivity was shown by right to use above public. | IWCLC argues joint/public use defeats exclusivity. | Exclusivity not shown; but other elements insufficient to prove prescriptive easement. |
| Whether the chancery court had jurisdiction to review a Board of Supervisors action. | Board actions should be reviewable under statute if officially recorded. | Declaratory relief should be controlled by statute and board actions may be reviewable. | Chancery court properly exercised jurisdiction. |
| Whether Paw Paw Road west of the gate is private and the road’s status. | Road status should be public for the initial segment and private thereafter. | Road beyond gate was never public or maintained; private status applies. | Road public for 0.13 miles; private beyond the gate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lowrey v. Lowrey, 25 So.3d 274 (Miss. 2009) (chancellor findings reviewed for manifest error; law reviewed de novo)
- Keener Properties, LLC v. Wilson, 912 So.2d 954 (Miss. 2005) (exclusivity in prescriptive easement defined as right to use above public)
- McCain v. Turnage, 117 So.2d 455 (Miss. 1960) (presumption of hostility if use originated adverse)
- Rutland v. Stewart, 630 So.2d 996 (Miss. 1994) (tacking allowed to connect continuous use across owners)
- Delancey v. Mallette, 912 So.2d 483 (Miss. Ct. App. 2005) (nonowners’ use does not negate owner’s claim to easement)
- Threlkeld v. Sisk, 992 So.2d 1232 (Miss. Ct. App. 2008) (ownership claim element requires owner to claim an easement)