Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District in St. Louis
ST. LOUIS — The Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District has reversed a Montgomery County trial court’s ruling that restricted how a couple could use a private roadway easement across neighboring properties, finding the lower court misinterpreted the deed governing the easement and improperly narrowed who could use it.
The appellate court held that the Arthur and Gayle Daumes’ deeded easement over a roadway known as “Mrs. Grey’s Lane” is not limited to non-agricultural use and is not confined to use by only the Daumes and their immediate family members, the February 3 opinion stated.
Instead, the court concluded the easement permits any non-commercial use and allows third parties to use the roadway for ingress and egress in connection with the Daumes’ property.
The dispute arose between the Daumes and neighboring landowners Thomas and Tracy Szepanski, James and Janet Keithly and Jim Clemonds, who own property crossed by Mrs. Grey’s Lane.
The Daumes hold a deeded easement granting them a right of ingress and egress for non-commercial purposes over the existing private roadway to access their back pasture. The easement language also states it runs to the grantees’ “heirs and assigns” forever.
Conflict began shortly after the Szepanskis purchased their property in September 2020, the opinion states.
Thomas Szepanski informed Arthur Daume that he planned to install a gate where the roadway entered his land and promised to provide a key.
Although Szepanski was initially unable to verify the easement, he gave the Daumes a key after Daume notified him of the deeded right of way. Problems followed when Szepanski noticed unfamiliar individuals using the roadway.
Those individuals were later identified as friends and family of the Daumes who had been given a key to access the property for activities such as hunting, fishing and camping.
The neighbors also learned the Daumes had leased their land to a corporation for a cattle operation and provided a key to facilitate that access.
In response, Szepanski changed the lock on the gate and did not give the Daumes a new key. He later installed an additional gate at the entrance of Mrs. Grey’s Lane without notifying them, effectively blocking the Daumes’ access, the opinion stated.
The Daumes then filed a quiet title action, asserting their right to use the roadway under the deeded easement and claiming, unsuccessfully, that they had also established a prescriptive easement through long-standing agricultural use .
After a bench trial, the circuit court ruled that the Daumes had an easement only for “non-agricultural and non-commercial personal use” and limited its use to the Daumes and their immediate family members.
The court allowed the gates to remain in place so long as the Daumes and their family had unimpeded access by key and rejected the claim of a prescriptive easement.
On appeal, the Daumes challenged only the interpretation of their deeded easement.
The appellate court reviewed the deed interpretation de novo and found the trial court erred.
The opinion noted that the term “non-commercial” has a plain and ordinary meaning and does not automatically exclude agricultural use.
The court said the trial court improperly read a “non-agricultural” restriction into the deed that did not exist. Because the easement language was clear and unambiguous, the appellate court concluded it must be enforced as written.
The court also rejected the limitation confining use of the easement to the Daumes and their immediate family. It held the easement is appurtenant, meaning it runs with the land and benefits the Daumes’ property rather than being a purely personal right.
As an appurtenant roadway easement, it may be used not only by the landowners but also by guests, invitees, and others lawfully accessing the property, provided the use remains non-commercial.
Rather than remanding the case, the appellate court amended the judgment itself, reversing the restrictions imposed by the trial court and clarifying that the easement allows non-commercial ingress and egress, including use by third parties authorized by the Daumes.
The decision was unanimous, with all three judges concurring.
Missouri Court of Appeals for the Eastern District case number: ED113073
