Mueller v. Hoblyn
Wyoming Supreme Court
887 P.2d 500 (1994)
- Written by John Yi, JD
Facts
In 1963, the Englemans sold a portion of their tract of land to REB, Inc. REB was given an appurtenant easement to a roadway to access a public highway. In 1969, the Englemans sold their remaining land to Mueller (defendant). Through a series of conveyances, Coffee and Hoblyn (plaintiffs) came to be owners of REB’s land, which REB subdivided. Coffee and Hoblyn sometimes were unable to use the roadway due to high snow drifts in the winter. In 1990, Coffee had the land surveyed and discovered that the path of the roadway did not correspond with the recorded easement except for a small overlapping portion. However, back in 1977, Mueller had drilled a water well and did some farming within the easement boundaries. He also fenced the area. Mueller thus refused to allow Coffee and Hoblyn to use the proper easement, claiming that the easement had been abandoned and that he had extinguished the easement by adverse possession. The district court found that, by operation of adverse possession, the water well terminated the easement with respect to a 200-feet long section of the easement. Both parties appealed: Mueller claiming the entire easement was destroyed, and Hoblyn and Coffee claiming no part of the easement was destroyed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, J.)
Dissent (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.