If you own land that is landlocked, then the first step to gaining access to it is to try to work out a deal with an adjoining landowner for an access easement and then record the easement in the land records to make sure it is preserved. Once established, the easement will "run with the land".
IF the voluntary negotiation approach does not work, then the owner of landlocked land can file a petition in chancery court to establish the easement ---either an easement of necessity, or a prescriptive easement (similar to adverse possession ---been using the means of access for so long openly and without objection from other landowner that an easement has been established by use). An access easement of necessity is apparently what is being sought in the case under discussion in this thread. Edited to add: MS Code 65-7-201 is another option ---see below (credit to Hambone for pointing this out).
When seeking such an easement of necessity (whether by common law or statutory 65-7-201), the landowner seeking the easement should request as limited an easement as possible to gain the necessary access, at a point on the other person's property that would do the least amount of harm to that property --the most direct route that will not adversely affect the use of the other property. There may be more than one such potential point of access that is reasonable under the circumstances. The Court, after hearing the evidence from both sides, would then render a decision, selecting the most reasonable point of access for the easement, determining the parameters and limitations of the easement, and deciding how much money the party seeking access should have to pay for it (it ain't gonna be free). The parameters of the easement would be the minimum necessary to gain the access. (I note that in the case under discussion, the article in the Cleveland paper quoted from the landowner lawyer's affidavit and/or petition that he was seeking an easement across "all" of the defendant's land ----suffice it to say that such a request is overly broad and will not be granted by the court --- the type of easement that would be granted would likely be no wider than 15-20 feet wide and extend from a specific point A to point B, meandering through a very specifically defined route ---it would NOT be enough land to hunt upon and the easement would likely be restricted only to access ---in other words, no hunting on the easement).
Any time you are considering buying landlocked land, you should consider the issue of access in advance of the purchase. IF there is no legally established easement, then you will need to first inquire about the possibility of purchasing an easement from the adjoining landowner(s). If there is no positive response to this inquiry, then you will need to factor into the purchasing equation the cost of going to court and obtaining the necessary access easement. It is not wise to presume the existence of an easement and just cross another person's property without persmission --- such could lead to a trespass ticket and bad relations with the adjoining landowner(s) ---your future neighbors for possibly a long time.
The landowner-lawyer in this case should have already pursued court action to establish the easement BEFORE just crossing another's property without permission ---for any reason. We really don't know the full history between these two parties, so it is difficult to say who is "right" or "wrong" in this matter from a moral or ethical standpoint. But, if the property line was clearly marked, and the lawyer/his guest did not have permission to enter the Bailey property, and did not have a legally established easement upon the Bailey property at the location where they were found by Bailey, then it is very likely that a "trespass", as defined by our MS statutes, did occur. The landowner-lawyer's chancery court action, after the fact, will not prevent the trespass prosecution.
And if Bailey did in fact cut trees that were on the property of the landowner-lawyer, then he will have to pay to the landowner-lawyer the fair market value of the cut tress, plus the statutory penalty for each tree as set forth in our MS statute(s) (that is unless he has waited too long to pursue the claim, letting the SOL run).
While this sounds like a matter that should have been worked out between the parties without the need for court intervention, there is likely an easy explanation for this mess ---both parties have been at fault in this ongoing pissing match. And like most pissing matches that involve court actions, it will be expensive for all of the pissers.
What we have heeah, is a failya to c o m m u n i c a t e.
BTW: with regard to the prosecution of the game warden for trespass, the wisdom of such action by Bailey is questionable. The warden was a guest of the lawyer and likely relying upon the lawyer with respect to where to hunt. While that is probably not a legal defense to "trespass" (and probably would not even be a good enough excuse that the warden himself would let someone else off the hook in the same situation), it might seem that Bailey could have just focused upon the lawyer-landowner for the prosecution. The inclusion of the game warden most likely stems from the previous ticket(s) he wrote to Bailey ---a form of retribution. So, this matter seems "personal" in all respects. And when I say that Bailey's actions in prosecuting both are questionable, I am not talking about in the legal sense, but in the matter of common sense. This game warden will likely be patroling that area for quite some time (unless he loses his job over this matter). And since landowners often need the assistance of game wardens to prevent poaching, etc., it is usually a good idea to develop a good relationship with the area wardens. Likewise, it is usually a good idea to develop a good relationship (to extent possible) with adjoining landowners ---your neighbors ---but, this is a two way street, and it takes two to tango.
Little grasshoppers: let this situation be a prime example to you of how NOT to behave in land dispute issues.
