Allen v. Duvall, 437PA83

Decision Date05 June 1984
Docket NumberNo. 437PA83,437PA83
Citation316 S.E.2d 267,311 N.C. 245
CourtNorth Carolina Supreme Court
PartiesW.R. ALLEN and wife, Annette Allen v. Roy Lee DUVALL, Melba Jean Duvall and Charlie Byrd Duvall.

Erwin, Winner & Smathers, P.A. by Patrick U. Smathers, Canton, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Redmond, Stevens, Loftin & Currie, by Thomas R. West, Asheville, for defendants-appellees.

MARTIN, Justice.

We granted discretionary review in this case to consider the single question: Was the language quoted above in the 7 October 1914 deed to W.S. McCracken, predecessor in title to defendants, sufficient as a matter of law to create by express reservation the appurtenant easements claimed by plaintiffs?

We hold that it was sufficient and reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for reinstatement of the judgment of the trial court.

The Court of Appeals based its opinion upon the premise that this Court's opinion in Borders v. Yarbrough, 237 N.C. 540, 75 S.E.2d 541 (1953), was overruled by Oliver v. Ernul, 277 N.C. 591, 178 S.E.2d 393 (1971). In so doing, the Court of Appeals erred. Oliver did not overrule Borders, either expressly or by implication.

In Oliver the paperwriting in question failed to create an easement because the description was uncertain in itself and was not capable of being reduced to certainty as it did not refer to anything extrinsic. The grantees in Oliver attempted to create an easement for a road, and although a road existed prior to the attempted grant, no reference to it was made in the paper. The description being vague and indefinite, it was patently ambiguous and void for uncertainty.

On the other hand, the description in Borders, while indefinite, expressly referred to a preexisting sewer line (for which the easement was created) across the land of the servient estate. The description in Borders, therefore, was capable of being rendered to a certainty by a recurrence to something extrinsic (the preexisting sewer line) to which it referred. Oliver v. Ernul, supra.

Oliver and Borders are not inconsistent, and we reaffirm the holdings in both opinions. Further, since Oliver, 1971, this Court has relied upon and cited with approval Borders v. Yarbrough, supra, in Yount v. Lowe, 288 N.C. 90, 215 S.E.2d 563 (1975); Hensley v. Ramsey, 283 N.C. 714, 199 S.E.2d 1 (1973); and Builders Supplies Co. v. Gainey, 282 N.C. 261, 192 S.E.2d 449 (1972). The Court of Appeals itself has cited and relied upon Borders in Hanes v. Kennon, 46 N.C.App. 597, 265 S.E.2d 488 (1980); Adams v. Severt, 40 N.C.App. 247, 252 S.E.2d 276 (1979); Prentice v. Roberts, 32 N.C.App. 379, 232 S.E.2d 286, disc. rev. denied, 292 N.C. 730, 235 S.E.2d 784 (1977), all after Oliver was filed in 1971.

We hold that the result in this appeal is controlled by Borders v. Yarbrough, supra.

"With reference to the manner of grant, the rule is that in describing an easement, all that is required is a description which identifies the land that is the subject of the easement and expresses the intention of the parties. No set form or particular words are necessary to grant an easement. As a general rule, any words clearly showing the intention to grant an easement which is by law grantable are sufficient. In easements, as in deeds generally, the intention of the parties is determined by a fair interpretation of the grant." 17 Am.Jur., Easements, Sec. 25.

....

It is stated in 110 A.L.R., Annotation ... "where the grant of an easement of way does not definitely locate it, it has been consistently held that a reasonable and convenient way for all parties is thereby implied, in view of all the circumstances" ... "It is a settled rule that where there is no express agreement with respect to the location of a way granted but not located, the practical location and user of a reasonable way by the grantee, acquiesced in by the grantor or owner of the servient estate, sufficiently locates the way, which will be deemed to be that which was intended by the grant."

237 N.C. at 542, 75 S.E.2d at 543.

When an easement is created by deed, either by express grant or by reservation, the description thereof "must either be certain in itself or capable of being reduced to a certainty by a recurrence to something extrinsic to which it refers.... There must be language in the deed sufficient to serve as a pointer or a guide to the ascertainment of the location of the land." Thompson v. Umberger, 221 N.C. 178, 180, 19 S.E.2d 484, 485 (1942) (and cases cited therein) (emphasis ours). See Oliver v. Ernul, supra, 277 N.C. 591, 178 S.E.2d 393.

It is to be stressed that an alleged grant or reservation of an easement will be void and ineffectual only when there is such an uncertainty appearing on the face of the instrument itself that the court--reading the language in the light of all the facts and circumstances referred to in the instrument --is yet unable to derive therefrom the intention of the parties as to what land was to be conveyed. Thompson v. Umberger, supra.

In the case at bar, the language of reservation in the 1914 deed was clearly sufficient to create the two easements in question [A] right of way for a road for wagons and all purposes, beginning at G.L. Allen's line and running up on East side of creek over this land; also a right of way for road to be kept open from the above road out to the Beaverdam Road near Alston's Chapel, or schoolhouse.

The requisite intent to reserve the two rights-of-way is plain and unmistakable. The reservation of the easement refers to "a road for wagons and all purposes" and to "a right of way for a road to be kept open from the above road out to the Beaverdam Road." The evidence showed that these two roads were being used across the property in question at the time of the reservation.

Plaintiffs introduced surveys, photographs, and maps enabling the trier of fact to conclude that recognizable roadways exist and follow identifiable...

To continue reading

Request your trial
32 cases
  • Broughton v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.
    • United States
    • North Carolina Court of Appeals
    • November 4, 2003
    ...621, 435 S.E.2d 336 (1993) (citing Allen v. Duvall, 63 N.C.App. 342, 345, 304 S.E.2d 789, 791 (1983), rev'd on other grounds, 311 N.C. 245, 316 S.E.2d 267 (1984)). The article of 3 December 1995 contains the following statements concerning plaintiff's The house sits on a hill, looking down ......
  • USA Cartage Leasing, LLC v. Baer
    • United States
    • Maryland Court of Appeals
    • October 24, 2012
    ...comparison of the benefits and burdens of the easement, and actual use, if any, by the owner of the dominant estate); Allen v. Duvall, 311 N.C. 245, 316 S.E.2d 267 (1984) (ambiguity in the description of the location of the easement is resolved by reference to extrinsic evidence). 13.Arkans......
  • Drd Enter.s LLC v. Flickema
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • November 18, 2010
    ...of identification... the conveyance is absolute[ly] nugatory." McHale[, 325 Mass. at 385, 90 N.E.2d 908 at 911]. Allen v. Duvall, 311 N.C. 245, 249, 316 S.E.2d 267 (1984). Id. at 645-46, 481 N.E.2d at 493. [¶21.] The North Carolina Supreme Court has discussed the sufficiency of an easement'......
  • Highway Properties v. Dollar Sav. Bank
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • May 25, 1993
    ...of an easement created in a deed. One of the best summaries is given by the North Carolina Supreme Court in Allen v. Duvall, 311 N.C. 245, 249, 316 S.E.2d 267, 270 (1984): "When an easement is created by deed, either by express grant or by reservation, the description thereof 'must either b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT