Kentucky court rejects bid to use neighbour's driveway after land split

A property dispute in Kentucky has ended with a state appeals court ruling against a couple who claimed they had the right to use a neighbour’s pathway to reach their land. The dispute centred on two adjoining parcels that once belonged to the same family: a roughly 37-acre property bought in the 1950s and a smaller, three-fourths-acre tract acquired about 20 years later.

For years, the family used a pathway across the smaller parcel to reach parts of the larger property. But after the two tracts were sold separately, the new owners disagreed over whether that access could continue.On October 23, 2026, the Kentucky Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s decision that Charlie E. Stearns and Kathy Stearns had no legal easement allowing them to cross the adjoining property owned by John Warinner and Betty Warinner.

As reported by American legal website Law Justia, the court found that evidence supported the jury’s conclusion that the Stearnses did not have a legal right to use the route.

Two adjoining properties, sold separately

According to Law Justia, John Warinner’s parents bought the larger tract, approximately 37 acres, in the 1950s. About two decades later, they purchased the adjoining smaller tract, measuring three-fourths of an acre. The parents used a pathway on the smaller parcel to reach portions of the larger property.

However, John Warinner testified that his parents had also used alternative routes for about 20 years before buying the smaller tract.After his parents died, the two parcels were sold separately by a court-appointed Master Commissioner on the same day. The Stearnses purchased the larger tract, which adjoined land they already owned. The Warinners bought the smaller parcel. The Stearnses believed they were entitled to continue using the pathway across the smaller property.

The Warinners disagreed and eventually put up barriers to prevent access.The disagreement led to a lawsuit in 2022. The Warinners accused the Stearnses of wrongly claiming an easement across their land and also brought a trespass claim against them. The case went to a jury trial in February 2025.

Why the couple said they needed the pathway

The Stearnses argued that their right to use the route had developed while both parcels were under common ownership. Their claim relied on the idea that a property owner’s long-standing use of one part of a property to benefit another part can, in some circumstances, create an easement when ownership is later divided.

They argued that the route was an implied easement, including an easement by necessity and what they described as an “apparent easement”.There was evidence supporting their position. Two of John Warinner’s sisters testified that the rough terrain made it extremely difficult, if not practically impossible, to reach the larger tract without crossing the smaller one. But other witnesses gave a different account.

John Warinner said alternative access routes existed, and a surveyor testified that the Stearnses could reach the larger property without crossing the Warinners’ land.Warinner also identified an older road that could be used after repairs, although he acknowledged that it needed work before it would be usable. The appeals court said the evidence gave the jury a factual question to decide: whether crossing the smaller tract was reasonably necessary for access to the larger one.

What the court said about an easement by necessity

Under Kentucky law, an easement by necessity generally requires common ownership before the properties were divided, a subsequent separation of ownership and a strict need to use the neighbouring property to obtain access. The appeals court said an easement by necessity generally cannot be established if the landowner has another way to reach a public road, even if that alternative is inconvenient.Because Warinner and the surveyor testified that other access was available, the court found there was enough evidence to support the jury’s rejection of the claim.

The court also considered the argument that the pathway qualified as a ‘quasi-easement.’ This legal concept can arise when an owner uses one part of a property to benefit another and the use is sufficiently established, apparent and reasonably necessary to the land.The judges said the Stearnses had to show more than a history of using the pathway. They needed to establish that the route was reasonably necessary to the enjoyment of the larger tract.

Evidence of alternative access meant the jury could reasonably find that this requirement had not been met.

Kentucky does not recognise a separate “apparent easement” theory

The Stearnses also argued that the pathway qualified as an apparent easement, a separate category they said could justify their access. According to Law Justia, the Court of Appeals rejected that argument. The judges also rejected the couple’s suggestion that the jury’s brief deliberations indicated that it had ignored evidence or committed misconduct.

They said there was no concrete evidence of improper conduct.

The jury had found that the Stearnses trespassed, but awarded the Warinners no damages on that claim.The appeals court concluded that the evidence supported the jury’s verdict and affirmed the lower court’s judgment. The opinion was marked “not to be published”. The ruling leaves the Stearnses without the claimed legal right to use the pathway across the Warinners’ smaller parcel. It also underlines a key point in property disputes: a route used for years does not automatically become a legally enforceable easement when neighbouring properties are sold separately.