Blair v. Fullmer
Decision Date | 21 June 1991 |
Citation | 583 So.2d 1307 |
Parties | Gary D. BLAIR v. Harold M. FULLMER. 89-1613. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
George C. Douglas, Jr. of Gaines, Gaines & Gaines, Talladega, for appellant.
Ray F. Robbins II of Robbins, Owsley & Wilkins, Talladega, and Angela F. O'Connell, Rockville, Md., for appellee.
Gary Blair appeals from a summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Harold Fullmer, in an action seeking to enjoin Fullmer from obstructing a public road that Blair alleges exists on Fullmer's property.
In 1958, G.B. Caudle and Mary Sue Caudle sought to subdivide their property in Talladega County. The Caudles drafted a plat of the proposed Caudle Lake Subdivision and filed it in the office of the probate judge of Talladega County. The Caudles then held an auction to sell all of the subdivision lots. Four purchasers, including Gary Blair's parents, bought lots at the auction, receiving deeds in July 1958. The plat apparently 1 showed a road beginning at a public highway, crossing the Caudle Lake Subdivision, circling a lake on the property, and connecting to the two lots purchased by the Blairs. Gary Blair now seeks to have that platted road declared a public road. It appears that all of the lots sold were situated on the outer perimeter of the Caudles' property and that all had ingress to and egress from existing public highways by way of easements independent of the road shown on the recorded plat. Although Gary Blair stated in an affidavit that G.B. Caudle bulldozed a road around the lake at the time of the sale of the lots, he admitted that it was never maintained. Mary Sue Caudle and others gave affidavits stating that there was never a road circling the lake, and there was no evidence that any of the purchasers of the lots had ever used any road across the land retained by the Caudles for access to their lots.
Following the auction, the Caudles withdrew the remainder of the estate from sale and retained ownership of that acreage, approximately 384 acres, until 1973, when they conveyed their entire estate to Goodwin Realty and Investment Company. Goodwin Realty also acquired two lots, totalling 96.5 acres, that had been purchased by other parties in 1958. In 1977 Goodwin Realty conveyed these parcels, approximately 480 acres, to Harold and Marjorie Fullmer.
Gary Blair's parents were the owners of a large farm that was adjacent to the Caudles' original estate. At the 1958 auction, they purchased lots A and B, 37.25 and 27.3 acres respectively. These lots were contiguous to the Blair farm. Access to the land that comprised these lots has always been gained by way of an improved road that is situated on the Blairs' property.
In 1975, the Blair parents divided their farm and conveyed a portion to Gary Blair and a portion to his brother, Linder O. Blair. The land that comprised the Caudle Lake Subdivision lots is included in that portion now owned by Gary Blair. The Blairs divided their property in such a way that the improved road on the Blair property was located primarily on the land that was deeded to Linder Blair. Thus, Gary Blair had to travel across his brother's property to reach his own property. A dispute arose between the brothers concerning access to the road, and in 1982 Gary Blair filed an action against his brother and their parents in Talladega Circuit Court, seeking an easement by necessity across his brother's property. In 1989 the circuit court granted an easement to Gary Blair. Shortly thereafter, Gary Blair brought this action, alleging the existence of a public road, as shown in the recorded plat of the Caudle Lake Subdivision, and seeking to enjoin Harold Fullmer from interfering with his use of this road.
In entering a summary judgment for Fullmer, the trial court relied on CRW, Inc. v. Twin Lakes Property Owners Association, Inc., 521 So.2d 939 (Ala.1988), and Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, 443 So.2d 1201 (Ala.1983), held that "[a]cceptance of a proffered dedication is necessary," and stated that it found "there was never an acceptance of this strip of land as a public road." Blair contends that the trial court erred in relying on these cases. He seeks to have this Court follow Gaston v. Ames, 514 So.2d 877 (Ala.1987), and hold that there has been an irrevocable dedication of the road shown in the recorded plat for the Caudle Lake Subdivision and that such dedication, alone, makes the road shown on the plat a public road.
In Cottage Hill Land Corp. v. City of Mobile, supra, the Court said:
Cottage Hill, supra, at 1203 (emphasis added). The holding in Cottage Hill was followed in CRW, supra.
The language in Cottage Hill stating that acceptance is required is dictum in any event, because the city planning commission, as a condition of its approval of the subdivision plat, required a 100-foot right-of-way to be added at the southern end of the plat for a proposed thoroughfare that had been placed on the commission's master plan in the late 1940's. 443 So.2d at 1202. Thus, the question of acceptance of the dedicated right-of-way was not even at issue. Moreover, the Court said:
The following statement appears in CRW, Inc., supra:
521 So.2d at 941. The Court then cited Cottage Hill for its statement that "Acceptance of a proposed dedication is necessary." The evidence in CRW would have supported a finding that by filing the plat for record the developers of the Twin Lakes Subdivision did not intend to dedicate the roads therein to public use, or that, if they had so dedicated them when the plat was filed in 1970, that dedication had been vacated by a consent judgment in 1977 by which a "Twin Lakes Trust" was established and the developer's interest in the Twin Lakes roads was transferred to the trust. Furthermore, when the Twin Lakes property was annexed into the City of Moody, the city council "approved a zoning ordinance allowing the Twin Lakes roads to remain private subsequent to the annexation." Id., at 940. Thus, the Court affirmed a judgment that CRW could not connect its subdivision to the Twin Lakes roads and thereby reach a public highway.
Alabama Code 1975, § 35-2-50, provides in pertinent part:
"Any person ... desiring to subdivide his lands into lots shall cause the same to be surveyed by a competent surveyor ... and shall cause a plat or map thereof to be made."
Section 35-2-51 provides in pertinent part:
Section 35-2-51(b) is identical to Code 1907, § 6030, referred to in Cottage Hill, supra, as "early Alabama statutory authority."
Section 35-2-52 prohibits a probate judge from accepting a plat of lands lying within a city having a population of more than 10,000 inhabitants unless the governing body or the city engineer has noted its approval on the plat; significantly, no such requirement is made regarding plats of rural land. 2 Section 35-2-53 provides for vacation of a plat before the sale of any lots or, after the sale of lots, by all the owners of lots. Fullmer purported to execute the latter...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pruitt v. Oliver
...the ordinarily prudent course of our summary-judgment review, see Byrne v. Galliher, 39 So. 3d 1049, 1059 (Ala. 2009); Blair v. Fullmer, 583 So. 2d 1307, 1312 (Ala. 1991), and could have unforeseen consequences on remand. Further, the main opinion holds that there was an issue of fact regar......
-
Pruitt v. Oliver
...ordinarily prudent course of our summary-judgment review, see Byrne v. Galliher, 39 So. 3d 1049, 1059 (Ala. 2009) ; Blair v. Fullmer, 583 So. 2d 1307, 1312 (Ala. 1991), and could have unforeseen consequences on remand.Further, the main opinion holds that there was an issue of fact regarding......
-
Dothard v. Alabama State Dept. of Human Resources
...ripe for review because the trial court did not rule on it. We therefore decline to address the question. See, e.g., Blair v. Fullmer, 583 So.2d 1307, 1312 (Ala.1991).4 The record indicates that often during this time, the foster mother was not at home and that a Department worker would hav......
-
Harper v. Coats
...§ 11-52-32(b), in affirming the trial court's judgment finding the road to be a private road. More applicable here is Blair v. Fullmer, 583 So.2d 1307 (Ala.1991), which follows the general rule laid down in Gaston. In Blair, a lot owner was seeking a declaration that a road indicated on the......
-
SUPPLEMENTING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING.
...judgment); Knowles v. Iowa, 525 U.S. 113, 116 n.2 (1998); United States v. Pelullo, 399 F.3d 197, 222 (3d Cir. 2005); Blair v. Fullmer, 583 So. 2d 1307, 1312 (Ala. 1991). But most recently in Sineneng-Smith the Court identified the times it did address issues sua sponte when these issues we......