VIENNA — Anyone interested in the future of the Fish Hollow Access to the Gasconade River will have to wait a little longer after the court held a bench trial last week.

After about four hours of evidence presentation and witness testimony in the Maries County courtroom on Oct. 13, the trial concluded with a direction from Judge John Beger: the plaintiff and defendant each have 30 days to file proposed findings and conclusions. Following the submission of those documents, Beger will make a decision on the case.

The case began in March 2022 when the Maries County Commission, the defendants in the case, received a summons. Eugene Appel, owner of the property surrounding the Fish Hollow Access, had filed a petition for the court to rule whether the access was public land or private property. The filing stated Maries Road 306 extended about 550 feet past a cattle guard and into Appel’s property. In 1978, Appel and his wife purchased the property from Martha Morgan. The property came tied to a lease with the Fish Hollow Fishing and Hunting Club, which lasted for 99 years. The lease ended in September 2021, and the Appels did not renew it.

Attorney David Bandre represented the plaintiff. Tony Skouby represented the defense.

At the start of the trial, about 45 people filled the courtroom. Shortly after the start, Bandre invoked a rule against witnesses. Beger told anyone who planned on testifying that they would need to leave the courtroom until they had given their testimony. While they waited outside, they were unable to discuss the case. About half of the people in the courtroom went to wait in the hallway.

Skouby expressed his dissatisfaction with the request because the case was a “matter of importance to people in this county.” Beger initiated a brief recess to meet with the attorneys in his chamber.

When the trial resumed a few minutes later, Bandre began presenting the prosecution’s side of the case. He said the Appels own the land with frontage to the Gasconade River. It includes a boat ramp and a parking lot. The Fish Hollow Fishing and Hunting Club had a 99-year lease that recently ended, and the Appels would like to restrict who can use the access.

Bandre continued by saying that the county had asserted the driveway, parking lot and ramp are part of the road, but the Appels had received no remuneration from the county. He listed some of the questions the plaintiff wanted answered through the case: Can the plaintiffs block the driveway? Can the plaintiffs close the road? What property is considered the road?

After asking those questions, Bandre called Appel to the stand as the prosecution’s first witness. Bandre began by asking him a series of personal questions. Appel said he lives in Oakville, near St. Louis. He retired from the construction business.

Bandre had Appel identify several pieces of evidence.

• Exhibit 1 was the 1978 deed that transferred the property from Martha Morgan to the Appels.

• Exhibit 2 was a quitclaim deed from 2013 that transferred the property from the Appels to their trust. Appel testified that he had never sold any of the land on the property.

• Exhibit 3 was a description of the lease agreement between the Fish Hollow club and the owners of the property in 1922. Appel testified that the lease lasted 99 years, included access to the easement and he had “stayed with it until the end” in 2021.

• Exhibit 4 was an image from the Maries County Geographic Information System (GIS) that showed an overhead view of the roughly 350 acres owned by the Appel Trust.

•Exhibit 5, Exhibit 6 and Exhibit 7 were a series of correspondences. Exhibit 5 informed the Fish Hollow club about the expiration of the lease and the Appels’ decision to not renew it. Exhibit 6 was a letter to the Maries County Commission saying that the Fish Hollow Access should be closed. Exhibit 7 was a letter from Skouby in response to Exhibit 6. Appel testified the letter from Skouby was the first he knew of the county claiming ownership of the road past the cattle guard.

• Exhibit 9 was a couple of sets of before-and-after photos. Appel testified that the photos showed the work he had done to the house and the barn on the property. He said he used the house relatively frequently though use had declined in the last few years while he was dealing with other things.

• Exhibit 8 was a Maries County tax receipt. Skouby objected to the admittance of the evidence, and Bandre withdrew it.

• Exhibit 10 was a photo of Maries Road 306. Appel testified that the road is a county road until an intersection with the path leading to the Fish Hollow Access. He had not put any gravel on the road leading to the access. Exhibit 11 was another overhead view of the area from the Maries County GIS.

Bandre said next he wanted to skip ahead to Exhibit 22. It was a drawing Appel made of the access area based on his knowledge. The prosecution said the map was not to scale.

• Exhibit 12 was a photo of the ramp from the intersection of the ramp and parking lot.

• Exhibit 13 was a photo from the parking lot that showed the start of the slope. Appel testified the ramp is made of white chat.

• Exhibit 14 was a photo of the cattle guard at the intersection of the main stretch of Maries Road 306 and the part that leads to the access. Appel testified the cattle guard had been there for as long as he could remember.

• Exhibit 15 was a photo looking down the path to the access. Bandre asked Appel what work he had done to the path going to the river.

Appel testified that he had never touched the path because there was no need. He did not like having the road there in the first place.

Bandre asked if Appel had ever done work to the parking lot.

Appel said he had “fought for 10 years” to get it picked up. He liked to use the area with friends, but there was often trash surrounding it.

Bandre said the path leading to Fish Hollow was about 0.379 of a mile. He asked if Appel knew the size of the parking lot.

Appel said he had never measured, but he estimated it was about 60 to 65 feet by 100 feet. The area is big enough to maneuver a truck.

Bandre asked if people leave trailers in the parking lot.

Appel said people usually park on the extension of the ramp. He said he thought some grading had been done though he had never seen it. The ramp has gotten bigger and bigger over time. On holiday weekends he might see as many as five trailers parked at the access.

Bandre asked Appel about the county putting gravel on the path leading to the access.

Appel said he did not dispute the county had put gravel there. He said the first time it had been graded was probably not long after he acquired the property, but back then it was not graded like it is now. It was “terrible” for a long time.

Bandre asked when the county started grading the road like it does now.

Appel said the area had started getting “much more utility” last year after the filing of the lawsuit. He had never talked to anyone from the county. He testified he had never been compensated for the county’s claimed ownership of the parking lot, ramp or roadway and the county had told him that if he tried to block access to the road, “they will tear down any fence I put up.”

Exhibit 16 — trash

Bandre presented Exhibit 16, which was photos from around the access. The photos showed objects found at the access, including roofing nails and “used prophylactic wrappers.” The photos also showed a gate that someone had torn down on the property, locks and chains added to fence posts by someone other than the Appels and a still from a game camera showing someone at Appel’s gate.

Bandre asked Appel if the people visiting Fish Hollow stayed at the access.

Appel said people with four-wheelers often drive them beyond the access and onto his property.

Bandre asked if Appel would need to erect fences close to the roadway to keep people off his property.

Appel said he would “need to do something.”

• Exhibit 17 was a photo of a boat like the ones people often put on the river at Fish Hollow. Appel testified the boats need “a little bit of room” to get in the water.

Bandre asked Appel what he would do following a court resolution depending on if the court found the access to be public or private.

Appel said if the court ruled the land as public then “that’s it.” He would abide by what the court says and give up. If the court ruled it was private, he would have to make a hard decision.

Bandre asked if Appel had an estimation of how many people use the access each month and when they use it.

Appel said it was hard to estimate the number of people, but people used the access 24/7 and it had “always been that way.” He said knowing people might be at his gate any time made him wonder and “not sleep too well.” He said he also worried about his two daughters going to the property when he did not have any idea who was around it.

Bandre presented Appel with three old maps from the county clerk’s office. The first was from 1936 and showed the property under the ownership of someone named Picker. The second from 1976 showed Martha Morgan as the owner. The third from 1991 showed Appel as the owner. Bandre asked if the road stopped short at the river.

Appel said the road stopped where the road and easement go together.

• Exhibit 21 was title insurance from the 1978 purchase of the property.

Appel testified that he knew of the lease with the Fish Hollow club when he bought the property, and he honored the lease. When he would question people at the access about the club, they would tell him there was no way he could keep them out because the access was leased property. People often “hid behind” the lease.

Bandre asked if Appel had ever seen a list of Fish Hollow club members, or a membership card or even a secret handshake that would denote membership.

Appel said he had no knowledge of who was in the club other than Myron Rollins, a man he had become acquainted with over the years by meeting him at the access. Not all the people going to the access could be members, but Appel said he felt like there was nothing he could do until the lease expired.

Bandre asked if there was a camping area near the access.

Appel said at one point the Fish Hollow club had a cabin across a ditch from the parking lot. No one knew how it happened, but a fire destroyed the cabin. Because the fire happened close to the end of the lease, the club did not rebuild the cabin.

Bandre concluded his questioning of Appel by asking if he had any intention to sell the property.

Appel said he did not intend to sell. He loves the place, and he loves the river.

The defense got a chance to question the witness. Skouby asked if Rollins was the only person using Fish Hollow that Appel had gotten to know personally.

Appel said after buying the property, he was overwhelmed. It took years to get to know Rollins.

Skouby asked if Appel wanted to prohibit the public from using the access after they had been using it every day, 24/7, “like they owned it.”

Appel said he understood the access as being for neighbors. He does not want “the whole world” coming to the property. He had “raised a lot of Hell” about people coming to the access, but they had all told him the same thing about the lease.

Skouby asked Appel “they told you to jump in a lake and you let them?”

Appel answered affirmatively.

At that point, Skouby requested the court issue a directed verdict, which is a ruling by a judge determining no legally sufficient evidence. Beger denied the request.

Skouby asked if Appel knew Special Road District Four, an entity separate from the county, maintained the road until 1991.

Appel said he did not know, but he paid the tax bill.

Skouby asked what actions by Maries County had caused injury to Appel’s property.

Appel said the improvement to the ramp, without a river permit, had caused extra traffic at the access. No damage had occurred to him or his property.

Skouby asked when the ramp improved.

Appel said it was when the county got County Aid Road Trust (CART) funds for the road.

Skouby asked what had happened in the last 10 years for the county to cause damage to the property.

Appel said it had not caused damage to the property.

When Skouby returned the witness to the prosecution, Bandre asked if the county informed Appel that his driveway was now public and if the county said he could not block the road. When Appel said he had not been informed and the county had told him he could not block the road, Bandre said “That’s the damage here.”

Skouby said putting a fence post on a county road is a crime before the dismissal of the witness from the stand.

The court went into a 10-minute recess. When proceedings resumed, Bandre called Myron Rollins as a witness.

Rollins testified that he was from Leawood, Kan. He became familiar with the Fish Hollow Access because he is the only surviving member of the Fish Hollow Fishing and Hunting Club, which local people formed around 1922. One of Rollins’ uncles acquired a large portion of memberships. In the 1970s, another aunt and uncle acquired the majority and passed one to Rollins. Both the aunt and uncle have died and are buried in Wheeler Cemetery, leaving Rollins as the last member of the club. Rollins had been going to the access for 72 years since he was 6-weeks-old.

Bandre asked about the responsibilities of a Fish Hollow club member.

Rollins said he took care of the access and the cabin until it burned down in 2014. He cut grass and did a little work on the road.

Exhibit 20 — the cabin burns

Bandre presented Exhibit 20, which included an advertisement for a $2,000 reward for information about the cabin fire and an article from the Maries County Gazette about the fire.

Rollins said he had posted the ad around, but he never had to pay out the reward. He did not run the ad in the newspaper.

Bandre asked if Rollins remembered other people at the access.

Rollins said there are always people there. He also testified that the river bank has changed over time. He estimated that someone added gravel in the late 1970s or early 1980s.

Bandre asked when Rollins first became aware of the lease for the access.

Rollins said he had heard his family talk about it when he was young. He probably heard about the lease when he was about 10-years-old, but he did not read it at that time.

Bandre asked if Rollins, as the only member of the Fish Hollow club, thought he had the authority to exclude people from the access.

Rollins said he thought that he could, but he didn’t want to out of fear someone would burn down the cabin in protest.

Bandre asked if the people using the access were guests of the club.

“You could say that,” Rollins said.

Bandre asked if the club ever graded or paid for grading the road to the access.

Rollins said the club did not grade or pay for grading.

Bandre asked if the Fish Hollow club would continue now that the lease had ended.

Rollins said he guessed it will continue because he is still a member, but the club will engage in no further activities.

Bandre asked if there was ever a gate or other blockage across the road to the access.

Rollins said he did not remember seeing a blockage.

Bandre asked if Rollins recalled law enforcement coming to Fish Hollow.

Rollins said he had seen some law enforcement at the access, but it was not a frequent occurrence.

Bandre asked if the club had any communication with Maries County.

Rollins said he once looked up the deed in the recorder’s office. He also submitted a letter to the county following the cabin fire as part of the process to release information about the fire. He had interactions with the sheriff’s office following the fire and break-ins at the cabin.

Bandre asked if Rollins and Appel had discussed closing the access.

Rollins said he and Appel had discussed closing the access as the end of the lease approached.

Bandre asked when the ramp into the water expanded.

Rollins said he did not recall the exact dates, but it improved over a period of maybe five years during the early 1980s.

Bandre asked if Rollins had ever tried to have someone removed from the access.

Rollins said he had pointed out the no-trespassing signs to people shortly after the cabin fire. The signs were near the parking lot and the bridge over the ditch leading to the cabin. The signs went up before the cabin fire. Rollins wanted the sheriff’s office to know the property had the signs posted in case he needed to call them out to the access. Sometimes people shot guns around the access.

The defense got a chance to ask the witness questions. Skouby asked if the public had gone to the access as far back as Rollins’ first trip in 1951.

Rollins said some asked for permission but many did not. He allowed them to use the access to avoid problems that could lead to someone burning down the cabin.

After questioning, Beger dismissed the witness and it was time for the defense to present its side of the case. Beger said the court had put a restriction on the defense to allow only five witnesses to testify to the same facts.

The first few witnesses fell outside of the five-witness restriction because they each testified to different pieces of information.

The defense’s first witness was Pamela Richter, a senior planning technician for the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT). In that role, she keeps track of county roads throughout the state.

Richter testified that she added the 0.379-mile extension to Maries Road 306 in December 2009. The county started receiving CART funds for the road the following March. Exhibit A was correspondence between Richter and the county road district contact who requested the addition to Maries Road 306 from the cattle guard to the river.

During cross-examination, Bandre asked why MoDOT added the extension in 2009 rather than any other time.

Richter said the extension happened in 2009 because that was when she got the paperwork.

The second witness for the defense was Maries County Commissioner Doug Drewel. He has spent 14 years as commissioner of the Eastern District, which includes Maries Road 306.

Drewel testified that he was “pretty familiar” with the road and the access. He had first heard about it about 40 years ago. He went down there himself and never asked permission.

Skouby asked if other people acted like they had a right to be at the access.

Drewel said people did act like they had a right to be there. Some older members of the public had said the access had been in use since 1900 or before.

Skouby asked if the county had requested CART funds for the road in 2009.

Drewel said the county had been maintaining the road for years before that, so he wanted to start receiving the funds for the maintenance. The maintenance includes keeping ditches open and grading. He directed his road crew to grade all the way to the water. The county has put rock down in the water.

Skouby asked if the county uses the parking lot during maintenance.

Drewel said the county uses the parking lot to turn around graders and dump trucks. Without the parking lot, the road crew would have to back uphill around a corner for about a mile. It would take about two-thirds of the day to grade the road without access to the parking lot.

Skouby asked if a special road district maintained the road before the county.

Drewel said Special Road District Four kept the road maintained from the 1950s to 1991. Residents of the area established the district and later had it closed.

Skouby asked if the road crews ever see people at Fish Hollow during road maintenance.

Drewel said some people will be there fishing, barbecuing, swimming or boating. At most, there are maybe four or five people there on the average weekday. He never knew of anyone asking permission to use the access.

The defense turned over the witness to the prosecution. Bandre asked if Drewel knew of the lease before the lawsuit.

Drewel said he had first heard of the lease about 12 years ago through “general gossip.” He had never seen the lease.

Bandre asked if Drewel knew how much of the road Special Road District Four maintained and why the extension was not added to Maries Road 306 in 1991 when the county began maintenance.

Drewel said he was not sure how much of the road the special district had maintained. The extension was not added in 1991 because the county was not aware that the stretch was not documented as part of Maries Road 306.

The next witness for the defense was Det. Dale Harp with the Maries County Sheriff’s Office. He filmed Exhibit B, which was drone footage of a grader and a dump truck turning around in the parking lot of the access.

Harp also testified that he had been to Fish Hollow to rescue three people who had been sandbarred on the river. The rescuers went to Fish Hollow because they knew it was a usable river access.

The next witness for the defense was Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) Agent Tex Rabenau, who oversees Maries County. He testified that he visits Fish Hollow during his regular patrol because MDC included it as a public access in its paddling guides.

Skouby presented Exhibits C, D, E and F, which were all paddling guides published by MDC that included Fish Hollow as a public access for canoeing, kayaking, etc. Exhibit C was a book revised in 1985. Exhibit D was revised in 1989. Exhibit E was revised in 1997. Exhibit F included books revised in 2003, 2013 and 2017.

Exhibit G was MDC guidelines defining “navigable streams” as anything below the body of water’s high water mark.

During cross-examination, Bandre asked if the fact that the ramp is located in the book makes it a public access.

Rabenau said he does not follow just the paddling guides but also county maps.

Bandre presented Exhibit 22, which was a letter he sent to MDC in October 2021 to remove Fish Hollow as a public access in future paddling guides.

The next witness for the defense was Belle Volunteer Fire Protection District Chief Dwight Francis. He testified that the district uses the access for river rescues.

Skouby asked if the access would be an option for water if the district responded to a fire in the woods.

Francis said the access would be an option for obtaining water.

The next witness for the defense was Stormy Hicks, an employee of Maries County Road Two, which maintains Maries Road 306. He testified that he had been employed with the road district for more than two years. During that time, he has been responsible for grading Maries Road 306. He was the person operating the grader in Exhibit B.

Skouby asked how frequently Hicks grades and dumps rock on Maries Road 306.

Hicks said grading happens between four and seven times per year. He usually dumps rock twice per year.

Skouby asked where the high water mark was at the access.

Hicks said in an average year, the high water mark could be halfway up the parking lot. He had seen it up above the parking lot, which caused a “big pain” for the road crew.

During cross-examination, Bandre asked what directions Hick had been given for grading the road.Hicks said he did not remember the specific directions.

The next witness was Justin Georgevitch, another member of the Road Two crew. He testified that he had graded Maries Road 306 from 2016 to 2021 when Hicks joined the crew.

Skouby asked how often Georgevitch graded the road.

Georgevitch said he graded Maries Road 306 four to five times per year as needed. He added gravel all the way to the edge of the water about once per year. He also testified that he needed the parking lot to turn around equipment.

Skouby asked where the high water mark was at the access.

Georgevitch said the mark varies, but the average is from the edge to the middle of the parking lot.

The next witness was Jerry Ruppel, a Road Two employee for about 10 years until he left in 2016. He testified that he graded Maries Road 306 four to five times per year and added rock at least once per year. He used the parking lot to turn around equipment.

Skouby asked where the high water mark was at the access.

Ruppel said the high water mark was at the parking lot.

At that point, Bandre objected to Skouby leading witnesses. Beger agreed.

Skouby said he was trying to make the proceedings go faster.

The defense’s last five witnesses testified about their personal experiences at Fish Hollow. Skouby selected them from a larger list and invited anyone who was there as a potential witness but was no longer set to testify to reenter the courtroom.

Earl Buehrlen Jr. was the first of the five to testify. He had been going to Fish Hollow for about 72 years since he was three or four years old. His father had rented the land the Appels now owned. He also talked about a ferry that brought people to the access until about 1900.

Buehrlen recalled always seeing many people at Fish Hollow when he was younger. It was the first place he ever saw someone with tattoos. The public used the access for fishing, gigging or just an escape from their homes. He said he had never asked permission to use the access, and he had never heard anyone say he needed permission.

Bandre objected a few times to Buehrlen’s testimony as hearsay or non-response. When he got a chance to cross-examine Buehrlen, he asked if he had ever seen no-trespassing signs on the property.

Buerhlen said he had seen signs ever since Appel owned it.

The next witness was Cody White, a Road Two employee in 1996. He testified that he graded the road to the river. He shared that he had gone to the access for 40 years. He said he considers it a local landmark.

Skouby asked if White used Fish Hollow like he owned it.

White said he did and he respected it like he owned it, too. He often picked up trash he found there.

During cross-examination, Bandre asked if White ever saw no-trespassing signs.

White said he did not notice any signs.

The next witness was Gina Weller-Tegart. She testified that she had been going to Fish Hollow to fish, swim and boat for at least 40 years. She has seen others in the community there.

Skouby asked if Weller-Tegart had ever seen a big group of people there.

Weller-Tegart said she had seen church groups go to Fish Hollow for baptisms.

Skouby asked if Weller-Tegart had ever asked permission to visit Fish Hollow.

Weller-Tegart said she had never asked permission. She had treated it as a public access her whole life. In the summer, she goes there about twice per week. She had seen Appel there before, but he had never asked her to leave. She did not know about the lease before hearing about the lawsuit.

During cross-examination, Bandre asked if she had ever seen no-trespassing signs.

Weller-Tegart said she had seen signs on the edge of the access recently, within the last two years, but she never crossed onto the part of the property where the no-trespassing signs were posted.

The next witness was Chris Gehlert. He testified that he had used the access since 1989 with his father, uncles and cousins. He said the whole town uses Fish Hollow and no one has ever asked to go down to it.

The last witness for the defense was Justin Gehlert. He said he had known about the access for 32 years. He fished there and took his daughters there. He considered it a second home.

In rebuttal, Bandre called Appel back to the stand. Appel testified that he directed Bandre to write the letter to MDC. Bandre said that per MDC, there was no proof that Fish Hollow is a public access.

Skouby presented the last piece of evidence, Exhibit H, which was an affidavit from MDC about the letter and why it removed Fish Hollow from its list of public accesses. The affidavit said MDC removed the letter to not put citizens into a contentious situation.

As the trial concluded, Bandre requested two weeks to complete his proposed findings and conclusions. Skouby asked for longer. Beger gave them each 30 days. Beger said once he receives the filings, he will do his “best to get a decision out expeditiously.”