Home/Missouri Court of Appeals/Maupin v. Bearden

Maupin v. Bearden

643 S.W.2d 860, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3370
CourtMissouri Court of Appeals
DecidedDecember 13, 1982
DocketNo. 12546
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 643 S.W.2d 860 (Maupin v. Bearden) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Missouri Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Maupin v. Bearden, 643 S.W.2d 860, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3370 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982).

Opinion

GREENE, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs, Clayton C. Maupin, Jr. and Mary Lou Maupin, filed suit in the Circuit Court of Wayne County, Missouri, seeking to establish a private road, by reason of strict necessity, across real estate owned by defendants, David L. Bearden and Sharon K. Bearden.

The petition pleaded that the Maupins were owners of certain real estate in Wayne County, that no public road passed through or alongside their land, and, that by reason of strict necessity, it was necessary that a private road be established across the Beardens’ land, which adjoined that of the Maupins’, to a public road, which was Highway AA. The prayer was for a decree establishing a right to the private road in the Maupins, that commissioners be appointed to stake out the road, and to assess damages to the Beardens.

The Beardens’ answer was in the nature of a general denial, with an additional allegation that the Maupins had “other and more accessible access to their property over land other than defendants’ and that plaintiffs have no legal cause, justification or right to demand or request a way of necessity across defendants’ property.” On these issues, the battle was joined.

Plaintiffs and defendants presented evidence, after which the trial court entered the following order:

“After considering all the pleadings, evidence and proof, the Court does find as follows: Plaintiffs have not established that they are entitled as a matter of strict necessity to establish and maintain a private roadway from their property in Wayne County, Missouri, to a public roadway.
Therefore, it is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Petition filed herein by Plaintiffs be dismissed and the relief sought by Plaintiffs is hereby denied.”

This appeal followed.

The Maupins contend that the trial court’s judgment is not supported by substantial evidence and is against the weight of the evidence. They further allege that the evidence clearly establishes that they are entitled to a judgment in their favor, as [862]*862prayed for in their petition, as a matter of law. Plaintiffs’ petition was filed pursuant to the directives of § 228.3401, V.A.M.S.

The only question presented here is whether the private road sought to be established was shown by competent and substantial evidence adduced at trial to be a way of strict necessity.

Plaintiffs’ evidence, in chief, proved that the Maupins purchased their 155-acre tract in 1967 from Mr. and Mrs. Bill Barrett. The land was located north of AA Highway, a public highway in Wayne County, Missouri. No public road ran through or adjacent to the Maupin property. At the time that the Maupins bought their property, their only known access to it by road was to go north from Highway AA along a lane that ran through real estate owned by the Bear-dens. The Bearden land in question, consisting of approximately 20 acres, was south of the Maupin tract and adjoined Highway AA on its north side. The Mau-pins used the lane with the permission of the Beardens until 1979, when David Bear-den fenced it off, and told Mr. Maupin he could no longer use the lane. At that time, Bearden informed Maupin that there were several other ways Maupin could drive to his own property. Maupin “had it checked out and nobody has been able to come up with a legal way to get into the property.” It was stipulated that no county roads connected with the Maupin property. The evidence of the Maupins showed that their property was legally landlocked, as they had no legally enforceable right to use any established private road to enter their property, and no public highway crossed or ran adjacent to their land.

The Beardens sought to counter the Mau-pin testimony by showing that there were four alternative routes that the Maupins could use to reach their property. These routes, for the purpose of clarification of the issues, were designated by the parties as A, B, C, and D at the argument on appeal, and are shown on the drawing below, together with the location of public Highway AA and a legend showing the location and ownership of the land traversed.

“Legend:

1: Appellants/Plaintiffs’ land, purchased by Clements with (2) then to Bar-retts and then Appellants (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘1’, Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘2’).
2: East Half of the Southeast Quarter, purchased by Clements with (1) and sold to Martins, then to Crites (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘2’).
3. The NW Quarter of the NE Quarter, and the East Half of the NE Quarter purchased by Cooper, then to Mann and sold to Martins, then to Crites (Defendants’ Exhibit ‘H’).
4: Purchased by Clements, who sold to Huitts, then to Wheelehons (Defendants’ Exhibit ‘H’).
5: Respondents/Defendants’ land.
NOTE: The roads shown are taken from Defendants’ Exhibit ‘A’ and Plaintiffs’ Exhibit ‘5’.”

[863]*863 tRG4VNNy7TVHKGnXbNk8Xni

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Mallory v. TWO-BIT TOWN, INC.
284 S.W.3d 167 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 2009)
Peterson v. Medlock
884 S.W.2d 679 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1994)
Herrera v. Roman Catholic Church
819 P.2d 264 (New Mexico Court of Appeals, 1991)
Norman v. Allison
775 S.W.2d 568 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1989)
Maupin v. Bearden
752 S.W.2d 403 (Missouri Court of Appeals, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
643 S.W.2d 860, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/maupin-v-bearden-moctapp-1982.