William David Ellington v. Harlan Randall Becraft
534 S.W.3d 785
| Ky. | 2017Background
- William D. Ellington sued Harlan Becraft and others seeking recognition of Smokey Hollow Road as (1) a county road, (2) a public road/passway, or (3) an easement by prescription after Becraft blocked access with a gate in 2004.
- Ellington owned the parcel since 1995; his predecessors used the route for farm access and moving cattle dating back to mid-20th century.
- Parties stipulated the first 0.1 mile from Oakley Pebble Road was a county road; the dispute concerned the portion crossing Becraft's property.
- Trial court found Smokey Hollow Road to be a county road, a public passway, and that Ellington held a prescriptive easement; the Court of Appeals reversed all findings.
- The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part: it rejected county- and public-road holdings but reinstated the trial court's finding of a prescriptive easement (not abandoned).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Smokey Hollow Road is a county road | Ellington: county formally adopted the full route / county inaction implied acceptance | Becraft: only the first 0.1 mile was stipulated as county road; no formal county adoption for remainder | Not a county road; county roads require formal county acceptance |
| Whether Smokey Hollow Road is a public road by informal dedication | Ellington: long public use implied dedication (prescription or estoppel) | Becraft: insufficient public use; required county control or 15 years of public use/control | Not a public road; insufficient evidence of public adverse use for 15 years |
| Whether informal dedication requires county control | Ellington: county control not necessary; public acceptance suffices | Becraft: prior authority suggested county control required for prescriptive public roads | County control is not required; dedication by estoppel or prescription can create public roads without county action |
| Whether Ellington acquired a prescriptive easement over Becraft's property | Ellington: predecessors used the path openly, continuously, hostilely for 15+ years (moving cattle, ingress/egress) | Becraft: path was unused/overgrown for years; gate in 2004 showed abandonment | Ellington has a prescriptive easement (use met prescriptive elements); easement not abandoned (non-use period shown was <15 years) |
Key Cases Cited
- Moore v. Asente, 110 S.W.3d 336 (Ky. 2003) (standard for substantial evidence and trial-findings review)
- Kentucky Props. Holding LLC v. Sproul, 507 S.W.3d 563 (Ky. 2016) (county roads require formal fiscal-court action)
- Sarver v. Allen Cnty., 582 S.W.2d 40 (Ky. 1979) (historical rule on county road establishment)
- Freeman v. Dugger, 286 S.W.2d 894 (Ky. 1956) (formal acceptance by officials not necessary for dedication)
- Riley v. Buchanan, 76 S.W. 527 (Ky. 1903) (long continued use may imply public acceptance despite official nonaction)
- Watson v. Crittenden Cnty. Fiscal Court, 771 S.W.2d 47 (Ky. App. 1989) (contrary appellate view that public prescriptive road requires governmental control)
- Columbia Gas Transmission Corp. v. Consol of Kentucky, Inc., 15 S.W.3d 727 (Ky. 2000) (prescriptive easement requires adverse, actual, open, exclusive, continuous use for statutory period)
- Rominger v. City Realty Co., 324 S.W.2d 806 (Ky. 1959) (public prescriptive road requires use by public generally)
- Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Hopkins Cnty., 369 S.W.2d 116 (Ky. 1963) (county road must be established by court order)