Schroeder v. TowMate, LLC
2017 Ark. App. 516
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Charles Schroeder owned two adjoining tracts (Tract 1 fronting a highway used for business; Tract 2 behind it used as a residence). TowMate owned surrounding tracts including Tract 3, on which a disputed roadway lies.
- The roadway at issue was formerly a county road but had not been maintained or publicly used since the 1960s; the circuit court found it abandoned.
- TowMate constructed a screening fence atop the old roadway as part of development of Tract 3, blocking access from Schroeder’s tracts.
- Schroeder sued seeking injunctive relief, asserting the road was a county road or, if abandoned, that he (and the public) retained a right of ingress and egress (prescriptive/private access rights).
- After a two-day bench trial the circuit court ruled Schroeder and the public had no right to use the road; Schroeder appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Schroeder has a right to use the former county road for ingress/egress | Schroeder argued the old county road still conferred private ingress/egress rights despite abandonment (or alternatively a prescriptive easement) | TowMate argued the county road was abandoned, public use ceased, and any subsequent use was permissive, so no enforceable right exists | Court reversed: followed precedent that abandonment of a public road does not eliminate private rights of ingress/egress; Schroeder retains right to use the road |
Key Cases Cited
- Sevener v. Faulkner, 253 Ark. 649, 488 S.W.2d 316 (Ark. 1972) (abandonment of a public road does not extinguish private rights of ingress and egress)
- Wright v. City of Monticello, 345 Ark. 420, 47 S.W.3d 851 (Ark. 2001) (private right of access is not diminished simply because alternate access is possible)
- City of Tontitown v. First Sec. Bank, 522 S.W.3d 834 (Ark. App. 2017) (standard of review for civil bench trials; appellate review for clear error)