Abbott v. Abernathy
| Decision Date | 07 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | COA22-162 |
| Parties | JAMES CHANDLER ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICHAEL C. ABERNATHY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | North Carolina Court of Appeals |
Heard in the Court of Appeals 20 September 2022.
Appeal by defendants Rodney and Lynne Worthington from order entered 9 November 2021 by Judge Carla N. Archie in Mecklenburg County, No. 19 CVS 16593 Superior Court.
Rosenwood, Rose &Litwak, PLLC, by Erik M. Rosenwood, for plaintiffs-appellees.
Arnold &Smith, PLLC, by Paul A. Tharp, for defendants-appellants Rodney and Lynne Worthington.
Defendants Rodney and Lynne Worthington appeal from the trial court's order denying their motion for summary judgment and granting Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and declaratory judgment. After careful review, we affirm.
The parties are residents of Park Crossing, a neighborhood development in Charlotte that borders Little Sugar Creek. Park Crossing was developed in the early 1980s by First Carolina Investors of Mecklenburg, Inc., and it "contains approximately 605 homes, along with a swim club, tennis facility, and other amenities." The recorded plats associated with Park Crossing show four easements burdening certain properties; the easements were part of "pedestrian walkway systems" intended to "link the development without the necessity of pedestrian activity along the vehicular roadways" to a "floodway fringe area"-"swampy" land adjacent to the neighborhood. In 2000, the developer offered to sell the "floodway fringe area" to Park Crossing's owners' association, which the association declined. In 2001, the developer sold the land to Mecklenburg County. Thereafter, the City of Charlotte began to develop the Little Sugar Creek Greenway, which included the floodplain. The Greenway contains paved access points to various neighborhoods along its route.
The Worthingtons purchased their home in Park Crossing in 1998. The deed to the Worthingtons' property states that the title is subject to "[a]ll enforceable easements, restrictions and conditions of record." Of the four easements depicted in the Park Crossing development plats, one is a ten-foot-wide easement along the border of the Worthingtons' property, five feet of which crosses the Worthingtons' property (the "Easement"). The Easement is depicted on plats recorded at Map Book 20, Page 421 and Map Book 20, Page 499, Mecklenburg County Registry.
Plaintiffs allege that after the City completed the Greenway, Park Crossing residents increasingly used the four easements to access it. As foot traffic grew, some owners of the properties burdened by the easements "began intentionally obstructing access to the Greenway [pedestrian easements], including erecting and placing obstructions composed of ropes, fencing, and other material designed to interfere with use of the [pedestrian easements] across their property." Some also called the police to report that residents were trespassing on their property when the residents used the easements.
On 23 August 2019, a small group of Park Crossing homeowners filed a complaint in Mecklenburg County Superior Court against the Worthingtons and several other owners of Park Crossing development property burdened by the pedestrian easements. The complainants sought, inter alia, a declaratory judgment "in their favor as to the enforceability" of the easements, as well as injunctive relief to prevent the Worthingtons and other defendants "from constructing any further obstacles, traps, obstructions, fences, and the like" restricting access to the easements.
On 18 December 2019, some of the original defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(7) of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the original plaintiffs had failed to add all necessary parties to this action by neglecting to include all homeowners in Park Crossing as parties. The trial court entered an order on 4 February 2020 in which it concluded that "all record owners of lots within Park Crossing are 'necessary parties' to this litigation pursuant to Rule 19 of the North Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure." The court stayed the action and granted the original plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to join the necessary parties.
The original plaintiffs then sent each Park Crossing homeowner a package that included a copy of the trial court's order, a letter from the original plaintiffs' counsel, and a "Lot Owner Preference Form." The Lot Owner Preference Form allowed each owner to choose to take part in the action either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or a nonparticipating defendant (a "default defendant"). Those who chose not to participate in the litigation were served with a copy of the lawsuit and named as default defendants. Approximately 350 Park Crossing owners chose to participate as plaintiffs, while roughly 470 others were joined as default defendants in the suit. None of the owners chose to join the action as defendants.
On 8 June 2020, the original and newly added plaintiffs (collectively, "Plaintiffs") filed an amended complaint. In the amended complaint, Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment establishing the rights of all Park Crossing residents to use the easements; Plaintiffs also requested injunctive relief preventing the defendants from "interfer[ing] with the use and enjoyment of the" easements. On 17 August 2020, the defendants filed an answer and raised several affirmative defenses.
On 17 November 2020, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, and on 29 March 2021, filed an amended motion for summary judgment. A small group of defendants, including the Worthingtons, filed a cross-motion for summary judgment "as to all causes of action" alleged in Plaintiffs' amended complaint on 29 March 2021.
On 8 July 2021, Plaintiffs filed motions for entry of default and judgment by default against the default defendants. On 8 September 2021, the trial court granted Plaintiffs' motions, concluding that the four pedestrian easements were valid and "for the benefit of each resident of Park Crossing[.]"
The parties' summary judgment motions came on for hearing on 31 August 2021 in Mecklenburg County Superior Court. By the time of the hearing, Plaintiffs had "reached settlements with everybody except the Defendants Worthington." The hearing proceeded, with the Worthingtons contending that the Easement terminated as a matter of law once Mecklenburg County purchased the land to which the Easement leads, as the Easement "has now become a public way" without the Worthingtons' consent. The Worthingtons also asserted that Plaintiffs lacked standing to bring this action, and maintained that the Easement was abandoned. Finally, the Worthingtons argued before the trial court that Plaintiffs' requested use of the Easement constituted overburdening. Plaintiffs contended that the Easement was valid, not abandoned, and for the benefit of all Park Crossing residents.
On 9 November 2021, the trial court entered an order granting declaratory judgment and summary judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, and denying the Worthingtons' motion for summary judgment. The court found that "[t]he express language and clear depictions in the Park Crossing maps and plats . . . recorded by the [d]eveloper dedicate the [pedestrian easements] as appurtenant easements to and for the benefit of each resident of Park Crossing." The court ordered that the Worthingtons remove any obstructions to the Easement and refrain from restricting residents' access to the Easement in the future.
The Worthingtons timely appealed the trial court's order.
As a preliminary matter, we address this Court's jurisdiction to review the Worthingtons' appeal of the trial court's order granting Plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment and declaratory judgment, and denying the Worthingtons' motion for summary judgment.
Generally, this Court only hears appeals from final judgments. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-27(b)(1)-(2) (2021). "A final judgment is one which disposes of the cause as to all the parties, leaving nothing to be judicially determined between them in the trial court." Veazey v. City of Durham, 231 N.C. 357, 361-62, 57 S.E.2d 377, 381, reh'g denied, 232 N.C. 744, 59 S.E.2d 429 (1950). By contrast, "[a]n interlocutory order is one made during the pendency of an action, which does not dispose of the case, but leaves it for further action by the trial court in order to settle and determine the entire controversy." Id. at 362, 57 S.E.2d at 381. With few exceptions, "no appeal lies to an appellate court from an interlocutory order or ruling of the trial judge[.]" N.C. Consumers Power, Inc. v. Duke Power Co., 285 N.C. 434, 437, 206 S.E.2d 178, 181 (1974). "A grant of partial summary judgment, because it does not completely dispose of the case, is an interlocutory order from which there is ordinarily no right of appeal." Curl v. Am. Multimedia, Inc., 187 N.C.App. 649, 652, 654 S.E.2d 76, 78-79 (2007) (citation omitted), petition for disc. review withdrawn, 362 N.C. 470, 665 S.E.2d 741 (2008).
Although the trial court's order in the instant case involved only the Worthingtons as defendants, to the exclusion of the suit's numerous other defendants, the order on appeal nevertheless constitutes a final judgment in the matter. When the parties' motions came on for hearing, the Worthingtons were the only non-default defendants with whom Plaintiffs had not entered into a settlement agreement. Shortly after the motions hearing, the trial court entered default and granted default judgment against the default defendants. Hence, Plaintiffs and the Worthingtons were the sole remaining parties when the trial court entered the order from which the Worthingtons appeal. Furthermore, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial