ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals’ Eastern District has reversed a Franklin County trial court judgment that denied a New Haven appliance-store owner a prescriptive easement over a passage he says is necessary for large delivery trucks to reach his loading dock.
In a July 21 opinion, the appellate court sent the case back to the trial court for further proceedings.
The court concluded that the lower court misapplied the law by focusing on Louis Klingert’s belief that the passage was open to the public without determining whether his own use of it was distinct from the general public’s use.
Klingert, a contracted distributor for GE Appliances, has operated an appliance store on Front Street in downtown New Haven since 2000.
At issue is a north-south passage between two buildings owned by Fred and Nancy Lee. The passage connects Main Street to an alley behind Klingert’s store and runs to the store’s rear loading dock.
According to the opinion, Klingert regularly used the passage to receive appliance deliveries.
He testified that an 18-wheeler can reach the loading dock only by backing in from Main Street through the disputed passage. The east-west alley behind the store is not wide enough for a large truck to turn and unload at the dock, he said.
The Lees bought their adjacent properties in 2016. In 2021, they placed a rope along the north side of the alley, blocking access to the passage.
Klingert removed the rope and continued using the route as needed. In 2023, the Lees placed boulders at the southern end of the passage, where it meets the alley, blocking vehicle traffic.
Fred Lee testified that the barriers were installed while construction workers were renovating the property because vehicles frequently traveled through the passage and the Lees wanted to protect the workers’ safety.
During the same period, New Haven completed downtown road and sidewalk improvements. A new sidewalk along the south side of Main Street included an elevated curb at the northern end of the passage, eliminating vehicle access from Main Street.
Klingert sued the Lees and the city, seeking recognition of a prescriptive easement and restoration of access through the passage to Main Street.
He settled his claims against the city, which agreed to abide by any court order concerning the passage. The trial then proceeded only on Klingert’s claim against the Lees.
The trial court ruled for the Lees, finding that Klingert had not established a prescriptive easement because he testified that he believed the passage was a public route.
Klingert had said he never sought permission to use it because he thought it was public access and testified that others also used it.
The appellate court said a claimant seeking a prescriptive easement must show use that was continuous, uninterrupted, visible and adverse for 10 years.
It explained that an individual’s use need not exclude all other users, but a person seeking a private easement must show a use distinct from that of the general public.
The court found that Klingert presented evidence of an individual use of the passage for his business, including receiving deliveries, parking and holding community events.
It noted Klingert’s testimony that the passage was the only way for large trucks to make deliveries to his loading dock and that there was no evidence that anyone else used it for that purpose during the relevant period.
The appellate panel did not decide that Klingert is entitled to the easement. Instead, it held that the trial court failed to consider evidence bearing on whether Klingert’s use was adverse and did not make findings on the remaining elements of a prescriptive easement.
The lower court must now enter an appropriate judgment in light of the appellate ruling or take additional evidence if necessary.
The court also rejected Klingert’s alternative argument that the evidence established a public prescriptive easement.
It found that his lawsuit sought a private easement for himself and that he did not adequately raise a separate public-easement claim in the trial court.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four case number: ED113803
