Local landowner urges county to clarify vague easement after court order

Duke Huffman spent the public‑comment portion of the meeting urging the Keith County Board of Commissioners to clarify the nature and scope of a right‑of‑way that has been the subject of a five‑year legal dispute.

Huffman said a judge issued a final order but "could not determine what kind of right of way this is," and that county records and survey documentation are sparse. He told the board the right‑of‑way was created by a private surveyor shortly before his property sale and that the paperwork does not specify whether the easement is for public use, an easement in gross, prescriptive access or a private access with maintenance terms. "We now have a final order from the judge, but she cannot find any documentation as to what kind of right away this is," Huffman said.

Huffman described practical consequences: uncertainty about who may use or maintain the drive, concerns that a neighboring landowner could remove trees or alter grading that would damage his property, and the prospect that the Daniels family might use the driveway to access a planned subdivision. He said the ambiguity had cost him substantial time and money and that an appraiser declined to provide a valuation because of unclear legal access.

County staff and other speakers noted the county was not a party to the lawsuit and that the court's order grants Daniels the right to drive on the easement while explicitly not deciding whether the easement is open to the public. Commissioners and staff characterized much of the matter as civil and judicial in nature; several suggested Huffman could appeal the trial court decision to a higher court or pursue state civil remedies. No formal county action to alter the court order or to change title records was taken at the meeting.

Huffman asked the board to at minimum determine and clarify the parameters of the right‑of‑way so he can know what he must defend or maintain. Commissioners advised that the county—s role appears limited because the county was not a party to the case and recommended seeking counsel or higher‑court review if Huffman seeks a judicial change.