Representative Image (AI-generated)
A Missouri couple who bought land without road access secured a legal route through their neighbour’s property, but a dispute over who would own that road led to an appeal. On August 26, 2026, the Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, reversed a ruling that would have transferred ownership of the road to the couple, Clint Bowen and Morgan Bowen.
According to the court’s opinion, published by Justia in Bowen v. Roeder, the couple qualified for a private road because their property had no public road access. However, the law entitled them to a permanent easement, not ownership of the land beneath the road.
Couple sought access to landlocked property
Bowen and his wife purchased a tract of landlocked real estate in St. Clair County, Missouri, in 2023, intending to build a family home there. Their property had no public road running through it or directly alongside it, leaving them without the necessary vehicle access.
Dylan Roeder owned the adjoining tract immediately south of their land. A road on his property ran from the southeast corner of the couple’s property to a public road, making it a potential access route.The couple petitioned the circuit court to establish a private road under Missouri law, specifically Sections 228.340 to 228.358 of the Revised Statutes. Following a bench trial on August 21, 2024, the court found that their property lacked public road access and that the requested route was strictly necessary.
On September 16, 2024, the court approved a private road 40 feet wide across part of Roeder’s existing road.
The designated section measured approximately 428.24 feet long and covered about 0.39 acre, or 17,130 square feet.
Lower court changed its position on ownership
The circuit court initially ruled that the couple would own the land designated for the private road, while Roeder would retain certain rights to use it. Roeder challenged this decision, arguing that the couple should receive an easement allowing access rather than ownership of the underlying property.
The court reconsidered the issue and, on October 25, 2024, amended its interlocutory judgment. It agreed that the statute was intended to provide access while limiting damage and inconvenience to the neighbouring landowner.
The amended ruling therefore granted the couple a non-exclusive right of ingress and egress over the road.Court-appointed commissioners assessed the damages at $3,750 for the easement, pipe-rail fence and gate.
The initial order also addressed responsibility for construction, maintenance and repairs, including the possibility of sharing those costs if Roeder retained rights to use the road. However, in its final judgment on March 10, 2025, the circuit court returned to its original position, awarding the couple fee-simple ownership of the designated strip while allowing Roeder to retain certain rights of use.Roeder challenged the final judgment, arguing that the court had incorrectly transferred ownership instead of granting an easement.
He also raised concerns about the judgment’s terms and whether damages should be reassessed. The appeals court resolved the ownership issue and found it unnecessary to address the other two points raised on appeal.
Appeals court explained the difference between ownership and easement
The Missouri Court of Appeals examined the state’s private-road statutes, particularly Section 228.358. The provision states that a private road established through this procedure must be a “permanent easement appurtenant”.
An easement gives a person the legal right to use another person’s land for a specified purpose without transferring ownership. In this case, the permanent easement would allow the couple to reach their property while Roeder retained ownership of the land beneath the road.The court explained that an easement attached to the couple’s property would provide the required access while preserving the distinction between a right to use land and the right to own it.
It also noted that the private-road statutes must be interpreted strictly because they permit an exception to the general prohibition against taking private property for private use.Although Missouri law permits private roads to be established when access is strictly necessary, the court found no statutory basis for transferring full ownership of the road to the couple.
Case sent back for a permanent easement
The appeals court agreed with Roeder that the circuit court had misapplied the law by granting the couple ownership of the road.
It reversed the judgment and remanded the case with instructions to enter a judgment establishing a permanent easement appurtenant, along with the other relief previously ordered. The court did not disturb the finding that the couple needed access to their property. Nor did the appeals court require the damages to be reassessed on remand, as the commissioners’ award concerned an easement and neither party had filed exceptions to it.The August 26 ruling therefore resolved the legal question of ownership without eliminating the couple’s access route. They would receive a permanent easement to reach their property, but ownership of the land beneath the road would remain with Roeder.