Jump To

Top Caption Disposition Combined Opinion

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 27, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Mary Davis v. Jerry Campbell

Court of Appeals of Kentucky

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 2025-CA-0591
• Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
• Judges: Combs

• Disposition: OPINION AFFIRMING

• Opinion

• Authorities (15)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (32K)

• PDF

Disposition

OPINION AFFIRMING

Combined Opinion

RENDERED: MARCH 27, 2026; 10:00 A.M.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

Commonwealth of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2025-CA-0538-MR

JERRY CAMPBELL AND MARY APPELLANTS
CAMPBELL

APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00671

MARY DAVIS; SUSAN MITCHELL; APPELLEES
AND TIMMY MITCHELL

AND

NO. 2025-CA-0591-MR

MARY DAVIS; SUSAN MITCHELL; CROSS-APPELLANTS
AND TIMMY MITCHELL

CROSS-APPEAL FROM LAUREL CIRCUIT COURT
v. HONORABLE GREGORY A. LAY, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 20-CI-00671

JERRY CAMPBELL AND MARY CROSS-APPELLEES
CAMPBELL
OPINION
AFFIRMING

---

BEFORE: CALDWELL, COMBS, AND EASTON, JUDGES.

COMBS, JUDGE: Jerry Campbell (Campbell) and Mary Campbell, his wife,

appeal from the April 7, 2025, findings of fact, conclusions of law, and judgment

of the Laurel Circuit Court affixing the location of an easement by necessity on his

real property in favor of Appellees, Mary Davis, Susan Mitchell, and Timmy

Mitchell (Davis and Mitchell or Appellees). Appellees have filed a cross-appeal

arguing that as a matter of law, the court erred in failing to grant them title in fee

simple to the disputed passway by (1) misadvising the jury on adverse possession

and (2) by relocating the easement by necessity from its pre-existing location.

After our review, we affirm.

At issue is a disputed passway crossing Campbell’s southern tract to a

landlocked northern tract owned by Davis and Mitchell. Davis and Mitchell claim

a right to the disputed passway in fee simple by virtue of their deeds, the deeds of

their predecessors-in-interest, or by adverse possession -- or alternatively, by

means of an easement by necessity. Campbell disputed that Davis and Mitchell

had any claim to the disputed passway. However, he agreed that they were entitled

to an easement by necessity to be set at a location of his choosing.

-2-
The properties were initially part of a parent tract owned by G.W.

Britton. The parent tract was bordered on the north by Robinson Creek and on the

south by Robinson Creek Road, a public thoroughfare. In 1935, although not

recorded until 1953, Britton deeded for consideration the southern tract, consisting

of approximately six acres, to Mark Lanham, thereby landlocking his retained

northern tract. Perhaps in recognition that the northern tract lacked adequate

access, in an unrecorded deed1 dated August 1936, Mark Lanham deeded back to

Britton (for consideration) a fifteen-foot strip bisecting the middle of the tract, the

disputed passway. The cover page of the deed described the conveyance as a

fifteen-foot right-of-way, but Davis and Mitchell asserted that their predecessor-in-

interest had added that language and that the conveyance was made in fee simple.

The authenticity of the unrecorded deed was contested.

Subsequent conveyances of the southern tract were made by recorded

deeds dated as follows: in 1976, a one-acre square along the southwest boundary

of the southern tract was gifted by Mark Lanham to the Hugheses; in 1997, the

remaining five acres were gifted by Mark Lanham to David Lanham and his wife

Mary Hanson; and in 2009, both tracts were deeded for consideration to Campbell.

1
Davis and Mitchell did record the deed in 2020, but by Order dated October 25, 2023, the
circuit court ordered that it be stricken from the Laurel County Clerk’s Office on the ground that
it did not contain an adequate source of title pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS)
382.110. Thus, the deed was presented as unrecorded to the jury.

-3-
None of the deeds referenced the off-conveyance of the fifteen-foot strip, and

Campbell denies having knowledge of a roadway across the property. After his

purchase of the southern tract, Campbell built a driveway approximately upon the

disputed passway -- although it terminates prior to the boundary for the northern

tract. He constructed a house near the east side of his driveway.

The northern fifteen-acre tract was conveyed by recorded deeds for

consideration dated as follows: in 1936, from Britton to John Champlin; in 1938,

from Britton to Fred York; and in 1946, from Fred York to Max York, who died in

1. Appellees Mary Davis and Susan Mitchell inherited the northern tract upon

the death of their mother, Lucy York, in 2020. Davis and Mitchell assert that each

of these deeds includes the disputed passway. The description of the southern

boundary of the northern tract is identified in each as beginning at Lanham corner,

then east with the wire fence to “the gap,” then south to the county road, then

fifteen feet east to a persimmon tree at the county road, then north “to gap” and

line between two maples, and then, finally, east to Lanham corner. The northern

tract has always remained undeveloped woodland.

Tensions rose among the parties in 2010 when Davis and Mitchell

allege that Campbell wrongfully excluded them from the disputed passway by

placing a locked gate on it. Campbell countered that he purchased the property by

General Warranty Deed with no easement or passway reserved in Davis’s and

-4-
Mitchell’s favor. Davis and Mitchell assert that Campbell was well aware of their

rights to the passway and that he chose to build his driveway on that location at his

peril. They claimed that their family had used the disputed passway regularly for

more than 40 years to reach their property for recreational purposes and to log it

for their personal use as well as to sell the timber.

The matter proceeded to a jury trial in May 2024.2 The circuit court

subsequently entered an interlocutory judgment consistent with the jury’s findings:

against Davis and Mitchell on their claims of ownership of the fifteen-foot

passway either by fee simple or by adverse possession. However, the jury found

that Davis and Mitchell had proven that they were entitled to an easement by

necessity for ingress and egress to the northern tract.

The circuit court then examined the property personally before entering

his findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a judgment determining the location of

the easement by necessity. Appellees insisted that the appropriate location for any

easement by necessity was the disputed passway; i.e., Campbell’s driveway. But

they proposed that an alternate roadway could be constructed to the west of -- and

2
Appellees purport to cross-appeal from the September 26, 2023, Order denying their motion for
summary judgment. An order denying a motion for summary judgment is not appealable. See
Transp. Cabinet v. Leneave, 751 S.W.2d 36, 38 (Ky. App. 1988) (“[O]nce the trial begins, the
underlying purpose of the summary judgment expires and all matters of fact and law
procedurally merge into the trial phase, subject to in-trial motions for directed verdict or
dismissal and post-judgment motions for new trial and/or judgment notwithstanding the
verdict.”). However, we have considered Appellees’ arguments as part of their cross-appeal of
the final judgment.

-5-
running parallel with -- the disputed passway. Citing his desire for privacy,

Campbell proposed that the easement by necessity be located at the far west of his

property line.

By order entered April 7, 2025, the circuit court adopted the alternate

Option “B” as proposed by Davis and Mitchell, reasoning as follows:

construction of a roadway easement in this location does
not unduly restrict Campbell’s use of his property since
he already has a roadway cutting through the middle of
his property, being his driveway, that the roadway would
afford Campbell some of the privacy he seeks, and that it
would be affordable and reasonable[.]

The circuit court rejected Campbell’s proposed location as unreasonable, stating:

that it is clearly in a difficult location for construction of
a roadway easement, [that it] would be extremely costly,
and [that it] would, in fact, use more of [Campbell’s]
property for an access easement than the alternate
roadway easement proposed by Davis and Mitchell.

Davis and Mitchell had asserted that Campbell’s proposed location would require

construction of a road “going through a drainage area with deep gullies, up a hill,

and through a heavily wooded area.” Campbell does not dispute that the cost of

such a roadway would approach $60,000 while construction of Option B would

cost approximately $20,000.

Campbell now appeals and challenges the circuit court’s rejection of

his superior right to determine the location for the easement by necessity. Davis

and Mitchell cross-appeal, arguing: (1) that they own the disputed passway (i.e.,

-6-
the current driveway on the Campbell property and beyond to their property line)

in fee by virtue of their deeds; (2) that the circuit court’s jury instruction on

adverse possession was erroneous; and (3) that it was reversible error for the court

to relocate the easement by necessity from its pre-existing location. But they also

argue that if this Court disagrees, alternatively, they contend that we should affirm

the circuit court’s placement of the easement rather than Campbell’s proposed

location.

We review the circuit court’s findings of fact for clear error, and we

review questions of law de novo without deference to the circuit court’s legal

conclusions. Ellington v. Becraft, 534 S.W.3d 785, 790 (Ky. 2017). We begin

with Davis’s and Mitchell’s claims.

Davis and Mitchell first assert that they own the disputed passway by

simple application of Kentucky’s race-notice rule3 and that the circuit court erred

as matter of law in failing to award them the property.4 Crucial to this argument is

3
Kentucky recording statutes, KRS 382.270 and 382.280, provide that no deed conveying real
property is valid against a purchaser for valuable consideration without notice thereof and that a
deed takes effect at the time it is filed for recording. These statutes, known as the “race-notice”
rule, provide that a prior interest in real property takes priority over a subsequent interest that
was taken with notice, actual or constructive, of the prior interest. Mortg. Elec. Registration
Sys., Inc. v. Roberts, 366 S.W.3d 405, 407-08 (Ky. 2012).
4
The parties debate whether this issue was properly preserved. We believe that it was by
Davis’s and Mitchell’s alternate proposed jury instructions seeking to have a judgment entered in
their favor following the jury’s determination that the unrecorded deed was not a forgery.

-7-
Davis’s and Mitchell’s presumption that the disputed road conveyed in those

recorded deeds was within the grantor’s power to give. However, we conclude that

the deeds are ambiguous.

“It is elementary that a deed can only convey title to land actually

owned by grantor and the grantee takes no greater title under a deed than the

grantor had.” York v. Perkins, 269 S.W.2d 242, 243 (Ky. 1954). The cover page

of the unrecorded deed (the claimed source for Davis’s and Mitchell’s title)

identifies the acknowledgement of a fifteen-foot right-of-way, but the subsequent

recorded deeds purport to convey the land in fee simple -- a superior claim of

title. This discrepancy creates an ambiguity, and “[o]nce an ambiguity is found,

‘areas of dispute concerning the extrinsic evidence are factual issues . . . subject to

resolution by the fact-finder.’” Vorherr v. Coldiron, 525 S.W.3d 532, 544 (Ky.

App. 2017) (quoting Cantrell Supply, Inc. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 94 S.W.3d 381,

385 (Ky. App. 2002)).

Davis and Mitchell introduced evidence that their predecessor-in-

interest had “written in” the reference to the right-of-way on the unrecorded deed,

and they argued that the original intent was for a conveyance in fee simple of a

fifteen-foot strip of land that bisected the southern tract approximately down the

middle. However, because of the ambiguity just discussed, the circuit court was

entitled to find otherwise. Thus, we cannot say that the circuit court erred as a

-8-
matter of law in failing to grant Davis and Mitchell the disputed passway in fee

simple as it clearly was its prerogative to find otherwise.

Davis and Mitchell next challenge the circuit court’s jury instructions

on adverse possession, which provided:

[t]he term “adverse possession” as used in this
Instruction means the visible exercise of exclusive
authority and control of the disputed property under
claim of ownership as against all others; it requires such
open demonstration of physical occupancy or intended
use as would bring it to the attention of an ordinarily
prudent owner, inquirer, or intending purchaser, however,
the paying of taxes or occasional entries for the purpose
of cultivating or cutting timber, hunting or fishing, or
other recreational uses, or other temporary uses, do not
in themselves constitute adverse possession.

Davis and Mitchell take issue with the italicized language and its

reference to the occasional recreational use of the land. In crafting the proposed

instruction, counsel for Campbell cited KRS 411.190, captioned, “obligations of

owner to persons using land for recreation,” and Moore v. Stills, 307 S.W.3d 71

(Ky. 2010), as authority. Davis and Mitchell argue that neither the statute nor

Moore is applicable because these authorities are intended to protect landowners

who permit the public on occasion to use their land for recreational purposes.

Davis and Mitchell, however, used the disputed passway primarily to access their

own landlocked property -- regardless of any incidental use for recreational

activities and the occasional cutting of timber.

-9-
Campbell disagrees that the instruction was erroneous. He contends

that KRS 411.190 is appliable by its plain language (that “[n]o action for [adverse

possession] may be brought by any person whose claim is based on use solely for

recreational purposes”) in reference to the testimony of Mary Davis that she and

her family had used the passway to cross the Campbell property “for recreational

purposes.”

Kentucky has adopted the bare-bones approach to jury instructions.

Norton Healthcare, Inc. v. Disselkamp, 600 S.W.3d 696, 723 (Ky. 2020).

Accordingly, trial courts endeavor to craft jury instructions that:

provide only the bare minimum necessary to ensure that
the jury understands the ultimate issue of fact to be
decided in any case, but still provide enough law and
background knowledge so that the jury comes to a
decision that is supported by law.

Merely failing to adhere to the bare-bones
approach, however, is generally not enough to justify a
new trial under our jurisprudence. When a Kentucky
appellate court is confronted with a challenge to a jury
instruction based on the content of the instruction, the
appellate court must consider whether the instruction
misstated the law by failing to sufficiently advise the jury
what it had to believe from the evidence in order to return
a verdict in favor of the party who had the burden of
proof. If the appellate court finds that the challenged jury
instruction did misstate the law, a presumption of
prejudice arises and the challenging party is entitled to a
new trial unless the responding party is able to show
affirmatively that the error did not affect the verdict. In
contrast, if the appellate court finds that the jury
instructions did not misstate the law, no presumption of

-10-
prejudice arises and the complaining party is only
entitled to a new trial if she is able affirmatively to show
prejudice, meaning that the error affected the verdict.

Id. at 723-24 (internal quotation marks, footnotes, and alteration marks omitted).

“[T]he substantive content of the jury instructions [is] reviewed de novo.” Sargent

v. Shaffer, 467 S.W.3d 198, 204 (Ky. 2015), overruled on other grounds by Univ.

Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Shwab, 628 S.W.3d 112 (Ky. 2021).

Applying this standard, we must first consider whether the inclusion

of the references to occasional recreational use constitutes a misstatement of the

law. Although the parties both assert that this is an issue resolved by KRS 411.190,

we do not agree. As the Supreme Court explained in Moore, 307 S.W.3d at 81, the

relevant portion of the statute is the clarification and codification of the well settled

rule of law that the mere incidental use of another’s property will not give rise to

adverse possession. Accordingly, regardless of KRS 411.190, the general common

law properly did apply, and the instruction did not misstate the law. There was no

error -- much less reversible -- on this point.

We turn now to Davis’s and Mitchell’s claim that the court erred as a

matter of law in failing to set the easement by necessity that was awarded by the

jury upon the disputed passway. Davis and Mitchell argue that where a roadway

over the servient estate has already been established and has been in use by the

owner of the dominant estate, that must be the location or placement of the

-11-
easement by necessity. Carroll v. Carroll, 355 S.W.3d 463 (Ky. App. 2011);

Bowling v. Smith, No. 2016-CA-000727-MR, 2018 WL 480528 (Ky. App. Jan. 19,

2018) (unpublished);5 and Bode v. Bode, 494 N.W.2d 301 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992).

We agree with Campbell that neither Carroll nor Bowling has any

relevance to the question of whether the location of an easement by necessity is

fixed by the historic use of a dominant estate.

Bode alone is somewhat relevant. At issue in Bode was claimant’s

dissatisfaction with not being awarded his preferred route across the servient

estate. 494 N.W.2d at 304. However, regardless of the reasoning of our sister state

in Bode, Kentucky law has squarely addressed the legal question now before us. In

Daniel v. Clarkson, 338 S.W.2d 691, 692-93 (Ky. 1960), our predecessor Court

instructed that when there is unsatisfactory evidence of a definite location of the

easement, the servient owner has the initial right to fix a reasonable route; in cases

where the parties cannot agree, the location may be set by the circuit court.

Whether there was a definite and ascertainable pre-existing passway

was a highly contested issue of fact, and neither the jury nor the circuit court made

the crucial finding that a definite path existed. Indeed, although Davis and

5
Under Kentucky Rules of Appellate Procedure (RAP) 41, citations to opinions “Not to Be
Published” are disfavored. They are permitted to be cited as persuasive but not binding authority
when a point of law has not been adequately addressed by any published opinions rendered after
January 1, 2003.

-12-
Mitchell have argued that one path has been shown by: (1) the surveys made by

Grande, their expert; (2) Hubbard, whom Campbell retained prior to these

proceedings; (3) an aerial photo of the two tracts. However, we are not persuaded

due to evidence to the contrary challenging the accuracy of that argument.

Both the Hubbard survey and the aerial photo clearly show a pathway

veering to the right, whereas the disputed passway as plotted by Grande was a

straight diagonal. Additionally, contrary to their testimony that the disputed

passway was navigable by car and a small lawnmower only ten years before the

survey, Grande stated that past Campbell’s driveway, the disputed passway was

not passable due to a thick grove of trees and deep ruts more than 30 years of age.

Therefore, the location was inadequate, and the parties could not agree. Pursuant

to the clear precedent of Daniel, supra, the court properly proceeded to set the

location of the easement.

Campbell contends the circuit court erred in rejecting his superior

right to set the location. An easement by necessity is a type of easement by

implication and “is based primarily on the policy favoring beneficial use of

property.” Gosney v. Glenn, 163 S.W.3d 894, 900 (Ky. App. 2005). An easement

by necessity not specifically located by deed may be relocated with the express or

implied consent of the owners of both estates -- dominant and servient. Wells v.

Sanor, 151 S.W.3d 819, 823 (Ky. 2004). To reiterate, our Supreme Court has held

-13-
that in addition to this doctrine of mutual consent, “in cases where the parties

cannot agree the location may be determined by the court.” Daniel, 338 S.W.2d

at 693 (emphasis added).

Finally, the law provides that even when a location is set, the owner of

the servient estate may “unilaterally modify or alter the location of a roadway

easement so long as it does not change the beginning and ending points and does

not result in a material inconvenience to the rights of the dominant estate.” Wells,

151 S.W.3d at 823; see also Stewart v. Compton, 549 S.W.2d 832, 833 (Ky. App.

1977); Terry v. Boston, 54 S.W.2d 909 (Ky. 1932). Campbell claims that he is

permitted to unliterally determine the location of the easement under the authority

of Daniel, Stewart, and Terry, supra.

However, it is undisputed that his proposed location would constitute

a material inconvenience to the dominant estate, requiring a significantly more

onerous and expensive construction. It also would require that a greater portion of

Campbell’s own property be used for the passway; the difference in length between

Appellees’ proposed Option “B,” and Campbell’s proposed Option “C” is about

100 feet.

In adopting location “B,” the court carefully weighed and considered

the interests of the parties, including Campbell’s privacy interest. Additionally, its

action was wholly consistent with Kentucky law.

-14-
Consequently, we affirm the judgment of the Laurel Circuit Court.

ALL CONCUR.

BRIEFS FOR BRIEFS FOR APPELLEES/CROSS-
APPELLANTS/CROSS- APPELLANTS:
APPELLEES:
Marcia A. Smith
Scott M. Webster Corbin, Kentucky
London, Kentucky

-15-