Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Right Of Way Easement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Petitioner seeks enforcement of 1960s deed and orders; respondents say fencing and 50 years of nonaction show abandonment
Summary
James Coster asked the court to enforce 1968–1969 orders and deeds that, he said, created an effectively exclusive fenced lane and prevented Windgroves' access; respondents argued decades of nonuse, lack of fence maintenance, and laches/abandonment defeated the petitioner's claims.
Colton Koontz, counsel for petitioner James Coster, asked the court to enforce prior circuit‑court orders and deed language that he said established a fenced lane and limited access to the plotted right‑of‑way. Koontz argued the 1969 order and earlier deeds required the adjoining landowner to erect and maintain fences and a single gate near the county road; he urged the court to treat that instrument and the arbitration result as limiting others' access and to reject any prescriptive right claimed by the Windgroves.
Gerald Lofstead, representing the Windgroves, responded that the record shows decades in which Mr. Coster and his predecessors failed to maintain fences or press claims, that there is testimony the Windgroves used the right‑of‑way since 1998, and that the circuit court correctly found waiver, laches, and abandonment. Lofstead argued petitioner had not taken the overt acts necessary to preserve the asserted exclusive easement and stressed equitable doctrines. The justices asked about the deeds' language, the precise terms of maintenance, whether the 1969 order created an exclusive right, and the factual record on the pole‑barn timeline. The court submitted the case after rebuttal.
