Four States: Chapter Twenty One – The Right of Way Part 2

November 2004 – January 2005

After receiving the blue letter, we reached out to the lawyer who had been helping us with the contractor issue to ask how we should proceed. He advised us to speak with someone who specialized in property law, so we scheduled a consultation with an attorney experienced in that area. We gathered our deeds and brought them along to the meeting. The lawyer reviewed each document carefully, assuring us that he would study them in detail and provide his conclusions once he had a full understanding of the situation. After completing his review, he drafted the following letter in response.

11-02-2004

Dear Mr. and Mrs. Eagle:

Robert and Tanna Slatt have consulted us about your letter to them dated October 6, 2004, concerning their right of ingress and egress to and from their property and your contention that they have no legal right to utilize any of your property for purposes of ingress or egress.

We have reviewed and enclose a copy of the deed dated April 16, 1927, from A. F. Martin and Eva B. Martin, his wife, to Steve Markovich, predecessor in title to Mr. and Mrs. Slatt, which conveyed the tract or parcel of land containing 25 acres, more or less, which adjoins your property on the north. You will note that the deed conveyed a right-of-way from said tract or parcel of land containing 25 acres, more or less, to the County Road. We understand from Mr. and Mrs. Slatt that the right-of-way referred to in that deed has been continuously used by their predecessors in title and by them from April 16, 1927, to date and that until receipt of your letter dated October 6, 2004, neither you nor any predecessor in title to your property ever questioned the right of ingress and egress over the right-of-way. Given the language contained in that deed, no consent from you or your predecessors in title is required to entitle Mr. and Mrs. Slatt to use the right-of-way.

Notwithstanding what the title search referred to in your letter may purport to show concerning the right-of-way, it is our opinion that Mr. and Mrs. Slatt have a clear legal right of ingress and egress over your property from the County Road to the property which they own. If the title search referred to in your letter was performed by an attorney on your behalf, I am available to discuss this matter with your attorney.

In the meantime, Mr. and Mrs. Slatt intend to continue to use the right-of-way across your property for the purpose of ingress and egress to and from the County Road to their property as they and their predecessors in title have done since at least 1927, and, if the right of ingress and egress is interfered with in any way by you or anyone on your behalf, they will file a suit in the Circuit Court of Marion County, West Virginia, to prohibit you from interfering with their right of ingress and egress.

As indicated, if you are represented by an attorney with respect to this matter, I am available to discuss the matter with him or her if he or she will contact me. If you are not represented by an attorney, I am available to discuss this matter with you if you wish to do so. You may contact me at the telephone number above.

Very truly yours,

The lawyer’s letter left little room for confusion. After reviewing the deeds we had brought in, he confirmed what we had long believed to be true: our property came with a legitimate, legally recognized right-of-way dating back to 1927. The deed from A.F. and Eva Martin to Steve Markovich—the original owner of our parcel—explicitly granted access from the county road to the property. This wasn’t a casual path or a neighborly favor extended through the years. It was a written, binding right, part of the land’s history and title itself.

He explained that the right-of-way had been used continuously for nearly eighty years without dispute. Generations had relied on that same path for access, and no one, not Dale nor any of his predecessors, had ever questioned it until now. That long history of use reinforced its legitimacy under the law. Even if Dale’s recent title search showed something different, it didn’t erase the wording of the original deed or decades of accepted practice.

The lawyer’s tone was calm but firm. He made it clear that we didn’t need Dale’s permission to use the right-of-way. It wasn’t a matter of courtesy or temporary allowance—it was a matter of record. The law was on our side, and if Dale chose to interfere, the next step would be to take the issue to the Circuit Court of Marion County. The letter wasn’t written to provoke, but it didn’t hesitate to draw a line in the sand.

Reading those words gave us a sense of relief we hadn’t felt in months. After so much uncertainty, the lawyer’s letter confirmed that our instincts had been right all along. The road we had been using wasn’t something borrowed. It belonged to the property and, by extension, to us. For the first time, we felt we had something solid to stand on—something stronger than opinions or assumptions. It was written proof that our right to come and go was as much a part of the farm as the land itself

The lawyer followed up in a second letter with some interesting news.

I spoke with Exploration Partners, Inc. this morning concerning whether his company had a title examination that revealed anything about the right of ingress and egress. He advised me that they did not have a title examination done with respect to the right of ingress and egress and that his company was neutral as to the issue concerning ingress and egress. He obviously understands that there is an issue. He did say that Mr. Eagle had called him this morning and asked him to install a gate on the road which he advised Mr. Eagle he would not do. So far as he is concerned, the dispute is between you and Mr. and Mrs. Eagle and Exploration Partners, Inc. will not take a position concerning whether you do or do not have a right of ingress and egress. Please advise me of any further developments concerning your use of the right-of-way.

The lawyer’s second letter added an unexpected layer to the story. He had reached out to Exploration Partners, the company that owned part of the mineral rights near our property, to see if they had uncovered anything in their records about the right-of-way. They confirmed that they hadn’t conducted any title examination related to ingress and egress. In simple terms, Exploration Partners had no documentation that could either help or hurt our case. They were neutral, and the matter was strictly between us and Dale.

That neutrality was, in a way, a quiet victory. It meant that no outside company was backing Dale’s claims. The fact that Exploration Partners wanted no involvement spoke volumes—they saw the dispute for what it was, a private conflict stirred up by a neighbor with no legal standing to challenge the right-of-way. He recognized that doing so would drag his company into something that wasn’t their responsibility.

The lawyer’s message was measured, but beneath his words was a quiet warning: this was no longer just a misunderstanding. Dale’s persistence was crossing into interference, and we needed to remain vigilant.

The lawyer ended his letter by asking us to keep him informed of any new developments regarding the use of the right-of-way. It was his way of letting us know he was still watching over the situation, ready to act if things escalated further.

What came next was something we never anticipated. Rather than receiving a response from Dale himself—or from an attorney, as we had expected—we got a letter from his daughter. Aside from knowing that she lived in Michigan, we knew nothing about her or her background. As far as we could tell, she had no legal expertise. Enclosed with her letter was another document, this one from a surveyor. It appeared that Dale had taken the 1927 deed and sought a second opinion in hopes of challenging what our lawyer had already confirmed. What followed was the surveyor’s written assessment, with certain names omitted here for privacy.

The Surveyor’s Letter

11-24-04

Greetings to the lawyer:

THE RIGHT OF WAY DESCRIBED IN DEED FROM A.F. MARTIN & WIFE TO STEVE MARKOVICH DATED APRIL 10, 1927 AND AS SHOWN ON PLAT RECORDED IN DEED BOOK 233 AT PAGE 55 IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF LOTS 2, 3, & 4. THE LOTS AND RIGHT OF WAY THAT ARE SHOWN ON SAID PLAT BORDER THE DALE EAGLE TRACT OF PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORDED PLAT DOES NOT RUN THROUGH THE DALE EAGLE PROPERTY.

IF YOU SHOULD HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS MATTER YOU MAY CONTACT ME AT THE TELEPHONE NUMBER ABOVE.

Very truly yours,

The surveyor claimed that the right-of-way described in the 1927 deed did not actually run through Dale’s property. According to his interpretation, the right-of-way benefited certain numbered lots—specifically lots 2, 3, and 4—and he stated that while those lots bordered Dale’s land to the north, the road itself did not cross into Dale’s tract. In essence, the surveyor was suggesting that the access road we had been using for decades was not part of the right-of-way established in the deed.

Our lawyer reviewed the surveyor’s conclusion carefully, comparing it with the original deed and the plat recorded in the county records. He explained that while the surveyor’s statement sounded authoritative, it was based on a narrow reading of a map rather than a full understanding of how the property had been used and maintained over the years. The key issue wasn’t simply where lines were drawn on a century-old plat—it was how the land had functioned in reality since 1927. The continuous and open use of that road by every previous owner, without objection, carried legal weight that no single surveyor’s interpretation could undo.

The lawyer reassured us that nothing in this new letter changed the foundation of our case. The original deed still conveyed a right-of-way, and our family, along with those before us, had lawfully used it for generations. He viewed the surveyor’s letter as an opinion, not a legal ruling. It might have been Dale’s attempt to find support for his position, but it lacked the authority to override both the deed and nearly eighty years of unchallenged access.

Dale’s Daughter Responds

11-27-2004

Greetings to the lawyer:

My parents have asked me to reply to your letter dated November 2, 2004. Your letter appears incomplete as the end of first page ends with “which” and page 2 begins with new sentence “In the meantime”. However, I shall try and response to the substance of your letter.

I asked a surveyor to review the deed you forwarded with your letter. He has concluded in writing (copy of his full letter enclosed)

“THE LOTS AND RIGHT OF WAY THAT ARE SHOWN ON SAID PLAT BORDER THE DALE EAGLE TRACT OF PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE RIGHT OF WAY AS SHOWN ON SAID RECORDED PLAT DOES NOT RUN THROUGH THE DALE EAGLE PROPERTY”

Therefore, your client’s assertions are incorrect as they have no legal right to enter my parent’s property. It is my parents’ understanding that your client has an easement for a right of way with a neighboring property. It is my suggestion that your client use that right of way as my parents no longer wish to permit access through their property to your client.

Additionally, my father has wished to hunt on your client’s property as he has done for years but your client has informed my Dad that he can’t. Will your client permit my Dad to hunt his land or not? Your response to me at the below address with copy to my parents would be appreciated.

Yours truly,

We could hardly believe what we were reading. It was clear she had been fed a version of events that didn’t come close to the truth. Her message echoed Dale’s claims word for word, as if she had taken dictation rather than forming her own understanding. She repeated his false statement that we supposedly had a right-of-way with a neighboring property—something that simply does not exist. The fact that Dale had misled his own daughter about such an important matter spoke volumes about how far he was willing to go to twist the facts.

The most astonishing part of her letter, though, wasn’t the misinformation about the easement. It was her casual mention that her father wished to return to our property to hunt, as he had in years past. This was the same man who had attacked and pulled a gun on my dad, the same man who had a peace bond placed on him because of his inability to coexist peacefully with others. The idea that he believed he could stroll back onto our land with a rifle after all that had happened was absurd. It showed either a stunning lack of awareness or a complete disregard for boundaries and safety.

Our lawyer read the letter carefully and shared our disbelief. He recognized that the daughter’s involvement was simply another attempt by Dale to control the situation without directly facing the legal realities. Her letter might have been polite in tone, but it carried the same manipulative intent that had driven Dale’s behavior all along. The reference to hunting was especially troubling—it revealed that Dale was not only unwilling to let the right-of-way dispute go but also seemed intent on reasserting himself on the property in any way he could.

In the days that followed, we discussed the letter at length with our lawyer. He assured us that nothing in her message changed our standing. The deed, the history of access, and the law were all still on our side. Her words might have been meant to intimidate or confuse, but they held no legal weight. What it did confirm, however, was that this conflict had become personal for Dale, and he was willing to drag his own family into it to keep the dispute alive. It was a reminder that we had to stay firm, protect what was rightfully ours, and let the facts—not the fabrications—speak for themselves.

Resolution and Retaliation

After taking some time to reflect on the latest letter, it became clear that the Eagles weren’t treating the situation with the seriousness it deserved. Their continued use of Dale’s daughter as a messenger showed they were more interested in prolonging the argument than resolving it. We had no intention of engaging in a back-and-forth with someone who had no legal standing or understanding of the issue. If they truly believed we had no right to use the right-of-way, then the next step was simple—hire a real attorney and take the matter to court. We weren’t going to spend another dollar or another ounce of energy entertaining their games. After everything our lawyer had done to clarify and confirm our rights, we thanked him for his efforts and decided to step back. For us, the matter was settled.

The lawyer understood our frustration and handled the situation with a calm professionalism that reassured us we had made the right decision in seeking his help. He agreed that continuing to argue with Dale’s daughter served no purpose and only gave legitimacy to an invalid claim. He assured us that, should the need ever arise, he would be ready to step back in and represent us. For now, he said, the best course was to let the record speak for itself. He wanted to bring the matter to a clear and respectful close, so he drafted a final letter to the Eagles.

Not long after we received the surveyor’s letter, Dale took things to a new level. He laminated both the surveyor’s statement and the gas company’s easement letters, then nailed them to the back of his garage—the side that faced the road leading up to our farm. It was as if he wanted to turn his garage into a public billboard for his grievances. Whenever we or anyone else went up the right of way, Dale would position himself nearby, waiting. He’d wave his arms and motion for people to roll down their windows, determined to have his say. If they didn’t stop, his face would flush red, his movements would grow frantic, and before long, he’d be shouting and giving them the finger as they passed.

It was disturbing to witness, not only because of his aggression but because it happened so often that it became routine. Visitors began to share similar stories, describing how he lunged toward their vehicles or yelled as they drove up the hill. It created a sense of unease every time we came or went, as if we were crossing through enemy territory on our own property. My dad’s patience finally ran out. He had done everything he could to stay calm and let the legal process handle the matter, but Dale’s escalating behavior left him no choice. He contacted the magistrate’s office and filed papers for a peace bond violation, hoping it would be enough to put a stop to the harassment once and for all.

The Final Letter

About a week later we got the following letter in the mail.

12-09-2004

Dear Mr. & Mrs. Slatt:

I understand via letter dated December 2, 2004 from the lawyer to me that he is no longer representing you but forwarded to you a copy of my letter to him dated November 27, 2004. My letter responded to your attorney’s letter dated November 2, 2004, to my parents alleging that a previous deed granted you a right of way through my parent’s property. My reply to your attorney addressed your allegation as the surveyor determined (copy of his letter was enclosed) that you do NOT have an easement through my parent’s property.

I also understand that you are presently constructing a road over a neighbor’s property and suggest you commence using that means for access as you have no legal right to utilize my parent’s driveway.

In addition, I understand that you continually harassed my parents and others and have filed papers against my Dad alleging trespass and hunting on your land. Although your accusations are false, they have caused my parents undue stress and pain from your continued harassment. For your information, I am prepared to help my parents financially to obtain sufficient counsel to protect them from any false accusations and claims you have asserted as well pursue any claims they may have against you for the pain and suffering you have caused them.

As an alternative, I suggest you withdraw your complaint against my Dad and prepare a letter withdrawing all previous permission for him to hunt on your land. My Dad will install a locked gate on his property line across the gas company’s road which would limit use to the gas company only. This should end any confusion and you and my Dad will no longer have any reason to communicate which I think would be welcomed by you both and both parties may save expensive attorney fees litigating your erroneous complaint and counterclaims he may file.

It is the holiday season and I suggest you chose the road toward reasonableness, not confrontation. Please reply directly to me and DO NOT communicate with my parents again.

Yours truly,

When we received the next letter from Dale’s daughter, it was almost predictable in tone—defensive, accusatory, and detached from the truth. She repeated the same claim her father had been pushing for months, insisting that we were building a new road across a neighbor’s property. That was simply false. No alternate road was being constructed, and there was no secret project to bypass Dale’s land. Maybe, in hindsight, our lawyer’s last response should have clarified that point explicitly, but even without it, the reality was plain to anyone familiar with the property. The road in question had been there long before any of us—long before Dale, his parents, or even the state of West Virginia itself.

What made her letter particularly frustrating was how it tried to flip the story, painting us as the aggressors. She claimed we were harassing her parents, when in truth it was the exact opposite. We weren’t the ones standing by the road, cursing at passersby or flipping people off. We weren’t the ones lunging at vehicles, trespassing on four-wheelers, or trying to intimidate neighbors in front of company representatives. Those were Dale’s actions, witnessed by more than one person.

The section of her letter about hunting was especially confusing. She mentioned it as though my parents had accused Dale of hunting on our land after the peace bond had been issued, but that wasn’t what happened at all. When my parents filled out the paperwork for the peace bond violation, they had included a reference to Dale’s repeated attempts to come onto the property under the pretense of wanting to hunt, not that he had actually done so. In hindsight, the wording in their statement wasn’t as clear as it could have been, and it left room for misunderstanding. The reality was simple—since the peace bond was in place, Dale hadn’t been permitted on our property for any reason. The mention of hunting wasn’t an accusation of action, but a reflection of his continued insistence on crossing boundaries that had already been legally established.

We found it almost ironic that Dale’s daughter claimed she was willing to pay for a lawyer to defend him against “false accusations” but not to resolve the supposed right-of-way issue that started all this. If that truly caused them pain and suffering, one would think they’d pursue it legally. But they never did. Dale had plenty of opportunities to file an injunction or take us to court if he believed his case had merit. Instead, he chose to bluff, harass, and hide behind his daughter’s letters. Deep down, I believe he knew he didn’t have a leg to stand on. That’s why he never hired a lawyer—because the law wasn’t on his side.

In the end, her words only reinforced what we already knew. The right-of-way was ours by deed and by decades of unbroken use. The peace bond was still in effect. And while Dale and his daughter tried to rewrite the story, the truth remained unmoved—quiet, steady, and documented in the very history of the land itself.

A Brief Calm

We never responded to Dale’s daughter. There was no point. By that stage, it was clear Dale had been feeding her lies, and no matter what we said, she wasn’t going to believe us. The truth didn’t seem to matter to either of them. We decided to move on with our lives and continue using the right-of-way as we always had. If Dale truly wanted to stop us, he could take us to court.

For a while, things were quiet. We didn’t hear a word from the Eagles for most of December. The holidays came and went without incident, and for the first time in months, life on the farm felt calm. Christmas was peaceful, and we began to think the worst might finally be behind us. A few days after the holiday, I left for South Carolina feeling hopeful that the year would end uneventfully. Unfortunately, that peace didn’t last.

On December 31st, my dad went down to a section of the right-of-way that had a tendency to wash out after heavy rain. Water would pour off the hillside, cut across the road, and carve deep ruts into the gravel. He went out with his tools and a load of gravel to patch the damaged spots—a bit of simple maintenance he had done countless times before. Later that afternoon, a patrol car pulled into the driveway. The officer said Dale had called, accusing my dad of vandalizing his property. My dad explained he was repairing the road, not destroying it, and the officer left without issue.

The next day, on New Year’s Day, a state highway patrolman showed up with the same story—another complaint from Dale about supposed vandalism. Then, on January 2nd, the county sheriff arrived. This time Dale had claimed my dad was building a new road through his yard. My dad calmly explained the situation, including the previous two visits from law enforcement. The sheriff wasn’t amused. He said he’d speak to Dale directly and warned him to stop making false reports.

This string of phone calls revealed something deeper about Dale’s behavior. Whenever he lashed out, one of his recurring accusations was that we “thought we were better than him.” I’ve come to believe that jealousy fueled much of his anger. If we installed gas wells, Dale wanted gas wells. If we hired a company to timber a few trees, Dale called one too. When the police told him he couldn’t come onto our property, he retaliated by calling them on us. It was like living next to a bitter parody of keeping up with the Joneses—except with shouting, threats, and police visits instead of friendly competition. The sheriff’s warning was clear: one more bogus call, and Dale would face serious consequences. I doubt he took it well, but at least the harassment stopped for a while.

The Hearing and Aftermath

After that, there were no more visits from the police. The peace bond violation hearing took place on January 27th. This time, we brought the same lawyer who had helped us with the contractor dispute. Dale’s lawyer approached with an offer: if we dropped the charges, Dale would “promise to behave” and “leave us alone.” The irony wasn’t lost on any of us—that was exactly what the peace bond required in the first place. If he had done that from the start, there wouldn’t have been another hearing. We refused the offer. As a result, Dale had to pay another hefty sum, and the peace bond was extended for an even longer period.

Over the winter, my parents and I found a bit of humor in the absurdity of it all. We started calling Dale “Wile E. Coyote.” It seemed that every time he failed to get his way, he came up with another outlandish plan to cause trouble, as if ordering schemes straight from the ACME catalog. For the next few weeks after the hearing, things were blessedly quiet. My parents allowed themselves to hope that maybe, just maybe, Dale had finally decided to move on or at least act civil. I wasn’t convinced. Wile E. Coyote always comes back for another round, and I had a feeling it was only a matter of time before Dale did too. For now, though, we enjoyed the peace while it lasted.