Searcy v. Maslach

464 August 26, 2026 No. 801 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF OREGON Michael Scott SEARCY, individually and as Trustee of the Michael Scott Searcy Revocable Living Trust, u/a/d August 4, 2021, Plaintiff-Appellant Cross-Respondent, and Edward H. SEARCY, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. MASLACH, Defendant-Respondent Cross-Appellant. Wallowa County Circuit Court 21CV05585; A182446 Wes Williams, Judge. Argued and submitted December 2, 2025. D. Rahn Hostetter argued the cause and filed the briefs for cross-respondent. Also on the opening brief were Benjamin Boyd and Hostetter Law Group, LLP. Also on the combined reply and answering brief were D. Zachary Hostetter and Hostetter Law Group, LLP. Brent H. Smith argued the cause and filed the brief for cross-appellant Before Ortega, Presiding Judge, Joyce, Judge, and Hellman, Judge. HELLMAN, J. Affirmed on appeal and cross appeal. Cite as 352 Or App 464 (2026) 465 466 Searcy v. Maslach HELLMAN, J. Plaintiff Michael Scott Searcy appeals a judgment that determined that defendant had an express easement over plaintiff’s property in Wallowa County and a supple- mental judgment that awarded defendant attorney fees and costs. Defendant cross-appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his claims of a prescriptive easement and interference with an easement. We affirm. “We review the trial court’s findings of fact for any evidence to support them * * * and its legal conclusions for errors of law.” Allco Enterprises v. Goldstein Family Living Trust, 183 Or App 328, 330, 51 P3d 1275 (2002). In a thorough, well-written, and persuasive 21-page opinion, the trial court meticulously walked through the evidence including voluminous exhibits (most of which were decades-old complex land conveyances), hearing testimony about the historic use of the asserted easement, and expert testimony from a land surveyor, to reach its conclusion that defendant had an express easement over plaintiff’s land as described on page 16 of the opinion. That opinion was incor- porated into the judgment in this case. Plaintiff’s briefing, much of which appears copied from trial pleadings, recites some general legal principles regarding easements and makes numerous assertions as to ways in which he claims that the trial court erred in deter- mining the existence and scope of the easement. But the briefing fails to provide any legal or factual analysis that demonstrates legal error on the part of the trial court.1 Nor does the briefing demonstrate that any of the trial court’s factual findings were unsupported by the record.2 Similarly, 1 Both parties claim that the trial court erred in the way in which it addressed the issue of the easement’s passage over former government lands. However, on that point neither party addresses the entirety of the record, including the effect of post-1994 land conveyances. Accordingly, neither party has demonstrated that the trial court was incorrect, as a matter of law, when it determined that the former government land was burdened by the easement at the time plaintiff pur- chased the property. 2 We observe that our review was impeded in part by plaintiff’s failure to return his trial exhibits to the court, when requested, which resulted in an incomplete record on appeal. At least one of those exhibits—Exhibit 12—was essential to the trial court’s decision. Cite as 352 Or App 464 (2026) 467 plaintiff’s briefing does not provide any legal or factual analysis that demonstrates any error in the trial court’s rul- ing on the attorney fee award. Turning to the cross-appeal, our conclusion regard- ing the express easement obviates the need to address defen- dant’s cross-assignment of error on the issue of a prescrip- tive easement. In addition, defendant’s briefing asserts that the trial court erred in its ruling on the interference with easement claim but fails to provide any analysis as to how the trial court’s fact-based ruling was erroneous, in light of the record. As to both litigants: it is not our role to “make or develop a party’s argument when that party has not endeavored to do so itself.” Beall Transport Equipment Co. v. Southern Pacific, 186 Or App 696, 700 n 2, 64 P3d 1193, adh’d to as clarified on recons, 187 Or App 472, 68 P3d 259 (2003). Because neither party’s briefs demonstrate any error on the part of the trial court, we affirm. Affirmed on appeal and cross appeal.