Right-of-way claim by a landlocked neighbor dismissed in full

Background

The opposing party, who owned farmland next to our client's land, claimed that our client had once promised a substitute passage, and sued to confirm a right of way over a specific strip of our client's land and to remove trees and obstacles. Alternatively, it sought confirmation of a right of way over a road our client had already opened.

Our approach

We argued that no such promise existed, that the opposing party was already freely using the wide road our client had built, and that our client would continue to allow passage.

Issues and ruling

The court found the testimony supporting the alleged promise unreliable because it came from interested persons or changed several times. It also held that a right of way over neighboring land exists only where no necessary passage exists, so a new route cannot be demanded merely for convenience when a road usable by vehicles runs right beside it.

Outcome

Both the main and the alternative claims were dismissed, and the opposing party was ordered to bear the litigation costs.

This is the outcome of an individual case and does not guarantee the same result in similar matters. Some facts have been generalized to protect the parties involved.