Judge accepts City’s proposed boundaries

    Judge Charles Hobbs recently ruled with the City of Holyoke in defining the easement boundary for the “pit” area involved in the lawsuit between Rupert and Claire O’Neal and the City.
    Hobbs’ order establishing the boundary was filed with Phillips County District Court Tuesday, July 18, using evidence from the Feb. 24 evidentiary hearing.
    The original lawsuit was filed by the O’Neals in July of 2015. At issue were discussions regarding potential development of the O’Neal property on the south edge of Holyoke, as well as negotiation of a settlement with regard to the pit used for City stormwater drainage.
    The pit is a triangular-shaped piece of property located southeast of Cobblestone Inn & Suites at 805 S. Interocean Ave.
    On June 21, 2016, then-District Court Judge Douglas R. Vannoy agreed with the City’s counterclaim to quiet the title and to maintain and use the pit on the O’Neal property, as has been done for close to 30 years.
    Vannoy retired June 30, 2016, and Hobbs took over the case. On Sept. 1, 2016, he denied the O’Neal request for reconsideration of Vannoy’s summary judgment. However, Dec. 20, Hobbs did grant a one-day evidentiary hearing in February on the quiet title decree with regard to the legal description of the pit property.
    
Judge rules for City proposal
    Exhibit B, offered by the City of Holyoke in the Feb. 24 hearing, was ordered by Judge Hobbs as the proper boundary for the easement. It involves a triangular area of approximately 1.82 acres.
    Malcolm Murray, attorney for the City, said the boundary parameters were filed with Judge Hobbs July 20, as requested in his order last week.
    In addition to the drainage pond, the City’s proposal includes the berm at the edge. The proposed easement, for the City’s right to access the property for maintenance, involves area on the edge of the berm, including tree lines to the north and west and area to the crop line on the southeast.
   The O'neal proposal for the easement description was close to half that, at approximately 0.97 acres. Their proposal included land between the tree line and the pit itself (within the berm) on the north and west and to the former crop line on the southeast as it was for many years.
    In his recent order, Hobbs cited that the most hotly contested question seems to be the extent of the easement on the southeast side of the impoundment outside the berm. While the O’Neals claim this area has always been part of their farming operation, Hobbs said he agreed with the argument put forth by the City.
    That argument indicates that the City has used the grassy area for maintenance since the construction of the pit in 1986, in conjunction with the O’Neals’ use of the grassy area for growing crops. “There is no reason this joint use cannot continue if the O’Neals choose to cultivate the grassy area in the future. The City has acquired an easement, not a fee, over the easement area,” according to the argument.
    In the dispute with regard to whether the berms are subject to the easement, Hobbs noted that the purpose of the easement is drainage and flood control. He cited City Superintendent Mark Brown’s testimony as credible in noting that the maintenance of the berms is necessary to keep the berms intact.
    Hobbs said the berms are properly part of the easement, and the berm covered by trees is no different. He added that there is no distinction between a berm covered with perennial grasses or evergreen trees.
    Referencing the issue of the distance from the top of the berm outward, Hobbs agreed with the City’s testimony that access and the ability to bring in maintenance equipment to mow and clear debris are key.