Page 4 of 4

the Simon property was inconsistent. Plaintiff Deann Simon testified that when she took possession of the property in 1998 the width was fifteen to sixteen feet. She testified that the road's current width varies between thirteen and sixteen feet. The county claimed it tries to maintain a width of twenty feet. The county engineer's recent measurements show the width varies between fourteen and nineteen feet. He also testified that the county also mows and maintains a ten foot strip on either side of roadways to keep a clear zone. There was also testimony that the road has narrowed in recent years. Witnesses testified that plaintiff Leo Simon laid sod near the road and demanded the county stop performing maintenance through his property, which allowed weeds and grass to grow onto the graveled surface.

The district court held the county's prescriptive easement consisted of twenty-two feet of road surface and five feet on each side for a clear zone. On our de novo review of the facts and applicable law, we find the twenty-two foot road surface easement exceeds what is necessary and actually used by the public. A sufficient amount is needed to permit dairy trucks and large farm equipment to safely pass as they are frequent users of the roadway. We believe the neighboring residents and county engineer testimony that the Simons have purposely narrowed the roadway by three to four feet. Considering the actual use of the road and relative rights of the parties, we find an eighteen-foot road surface easement will allow large vehicles enough to enable the Simons' narrowing of the road. We agree that a five-foot clear zone easement on each side of the surface was also acquired by prescription. The county regularly maintained this zone on an as needed basis until this litigation began.

RIGHT TO MAINTAIN THE EASEMENT. The plaintiffs last contend, contrary to the district court's holding, the county does not have the authority to do maintenance on the roadway even it has an easement. Easement holders have all rights necessary to ensure the reasonable enjoyment of the easement. Koenigs v. Mitchell County Bd. of Supervisors, 659 N.W.2d 589, 594 (Iowa 2003). In addition, "easement holders not only have the right but an obligation to repair and maintain their easement as necessary." Id. The district court correctly held the county has a right to maintain the prescriptive easement.

*5 CONCLUSION. We affirm the finding Dubuque County has a prescriptive easement over Dry Hollow Road which includes the right to maintain the road. We modify the scope of the easement to eighteen feet of road surface and five feet on each side of the surface for maintaining a clear zone. Plaintiffs have challenged the admission of an exhibit showing road width. We have not considered this evidence in our de novo review; therefore, we need not address this issue.

Iowa App., 2007. Simon v. Dubuque County Bd. of Supervisors Slip Copy, 2007 WL 2376736 (Table) (Iowa App.)

END OF DOCUMENT

(C) 2007 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.