Wyo-Ben, Inc., a Corporation v. Boyd J. Van Fleet, 361 P.3d 852

Wyo-Ben obtained a mining lease (Jones-Manning) in 1970 that authorized construction and use of roads on the leased premises; it mined briefly and built a haul road that later crossed what is now Van Fleet’s property.
The original lease term was until Oct. 31, 1973 and continued while bentonite was mined; mining stopped in 1973 but the lease was not formally terminated of record and Wyo-Ben later represented the lease as valid to a bank in the 1980s.
The haul road historically traversed multiple lands and ran 767.5 feet across Van Fleet’s parcel; heavy tractor‑trailer haul traffic (up to 100 round trips/day) used and maintained the road for decades; Wyo-Ben paid for road maintenance, culverts, cattle guards, and signs on parts of the road.
Van Fleet purchased the property in 2004, later surveyed it (2009–2010) and discovered the road crossed his corner; he demanded payment for continued use then gave trespass notices in 2011.
Wyo-Ben and M-I sued claiming adverse possession and prescriptive easement; the district court found Appellants failed to prove hostility/notice required for adverse possession or a prescriptive easement and quieted title to Van Fleet; the Supreme Court of Wyoming affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Adverse possession: whether Appellants proved hostile, exclusive, continuous possession for 10 years	Wyo-Ben: long, open use, maintenance, signage, and representation of control established adverse possession	Van Fleet: initial use was permissive under the 1970 lease; no clear, unequivocal disavowal or notice of hostility to landowners	Court: No — use was permissive and Appellants failed to show the requisite clear, manifest notice of hostility; adverse possession not proven
Prescriptive easement: whether Appellants proved hostile, continuous adverse use for 10 years that was brought home to landowners	Appellants: continuous, visible hauling and maintenance supports hostile use and notice	Van Fleet: neighborly/permissive use presumed; no conduct unmistakably communicated hostile intent to revoke permission	Court: No — presumption of permissive use not rebutted; no clear manifestation of hostile intent; prescriptive easement not proven
Deed exception argument (M‑I): whether Van Fleet’s deed phrase “subject to … apparent upon examination” imposed an easement burden	M‑I: road was apparent on inspection, deed language meant Van Fleet took subject to the road	Van Fleet: deed exception only limits warranty liability of grantor; it does not create third‑party rights; Appellants must prove easement separately	Court: No effect — deed language does not establish Appellants’ prescriptive right; claim must stand on its merits

Ruby River Canyon Ranch, Ltd. v. Flynn, 350 P.3d 748 (Wyo. 2015) (elements and presumption in adverse possession cases)
Graybill v. Lampman, 332 P.3d 511 (Wyo. 2014) (adverse possession factual inquiry)
Helm v. Clark, 244 P.3d 1052 (Wyo. 2010) (presumption of adverse possession and conduct constituting notice)
Hutchinson v. Taft, 222 P.3d 1250 (Wyo. 2010) (permissive use convertible to hostile only by unequivocal conduct)
Powder River Ranch, Inc. v. Michelena, 103 P.3d 876 (Wyo. 2005) (elements and heavy burden for prescriptive easement)
Shumway v. Tom Sanford, Inc., 637 P.2d 666 (Wyo. 1981) (requirement that hostile intent be brought home to neighbor for road easements)
Coleman v. Keith, 6 P.3d 145 (Wyo. 2000) (definition of adverse use in prescriptive easement context)
Stansbury v. Heiduck, 961 P.2d 977 (Wyo. 1998) (examples of acts that may indicate adverse possession)