Background
Michael Carleton purchased his 44-acre property in July 2016, with title explicitly reserving a right of way that originated in an October 1975 deed. The right of way grants Carleton access across neighboring land to Cold Run Valley Road, a public secondary road. Timothy Haberkam and Cynthia Berkemeier purchased their adjacent 3.09-acre parcel in December 2019. The deed to their property expressly excepted and referenced the same right of way, which had been memorialized in the chain of title through multiple conveyances spanning decades.
Beginning in August 2021, Haberkam and Berkemeier deliberately obstructed Carleton’s access to the right of way using tree stumps, brush, debris, and other physical barriers. They also sent Carleton threatening letters and filed false trespassing complaints. In October 2024, Carleton filed a declaratory judgment action seeking recognition of his express easement and a permanent injunction against interference with his use of the right of way.
The Court’s Holding
The Intermediate Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court’s summary judgment for Carleton and upheld the permanent mandatory injunction. The court found that the deeds of record clearly and unambiguously established Carleton’s express easement across the Haberkam Property. The right of way, described by metes and bounds, had been continuously referenced through successive conveyances since 1975 and was further corroborated by a professional survey and a licensed title attorney’s examination spanning over fifty years of practice.
The court rejected Haberkam and Berkemeier’s defenses of trespass and abandonment. An express easement, by definition, authorizes the use that would otherwise constitute trespass. More critically, West Virginia law holds that express easements cannot be extinguished by non-use, and the court found that any impediment to Carleton’s access had resulted from deliberate obstruction by the property owners—not from Carleton’s abandonment. Because Carleton’s right of way was legally unambiguous, summary judgment was appropriate without requiring a trial.
Key Takeaways
- Express easements established in recorded deeds remain enforceable across multiple property transfers and decades of time, provided the easement is clearly described and continuously referenced in subsequent conveyances.
- Non-use of an easement does not result in abandonment under West Virginia law; the party claiming abandonment must affirmatively prove it, and deliberate obstruction by the servient estate owner negates any abandonment claim.
- Professional surveys and title examinations by qualified attorneys provide persuasive evidence of easement existence and location; courts may grant summary judgment without trial when deed language and expert opinions establish the easement’s validity without genuine factual dispute.
- A property owner cannot unilaterally block a legally recorded easement across their land, and courts will issue mandatory injunctions requiring removal of obstructions.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces West Virginia property law’s strong protection of express easements once created and recorded. For landowners seeking to enforce access rights, the ruling confirms that a clear chain of title referencing an easement—supported by professional surveying and legal examination—provides a straightforward path to summary judgment, even if the easement has gone largely unused. Conversely, property owners who acquire land subject to a recorded easement cannot later extinguish that easement through obstruction or claims of abandonment.
The case also illustrates the appellate court’s treatment of pro se litigants (Haberkam and Berkemeier represented themselves): while courts liberally construe self-represented briefs, litigants must still comply with procedural rules, cite the record with specificity, and present more than skeletal arguments or conclusory statements to survive summary judgment or establish reversible error on appeal.
✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.