Bull v. Salsman
Decision Date | 01 July 1983 |
Citation | 435 So.2d 27 |
Parties | J.C. BULL v. Erin SALSMAN and Fred Salsman, III. 81-1040. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Charles E. Tweedy, Jr. of Tweedy, Jackson & Beech, Jasper, for appellant.
Joel Robinson, Jasper, for appellees.
This appeal involves a suit for a right of way easement. The trial court held that the plaintiffs have an easement across the defendant's land.
Defendant J.C. Bull owns approximately 183 acres of land in Winston County, fronting on Alabama Highway # 195. He purchased this property in 1976 or 1977 from the heirs of Jodie M. Lee. Plaintiff Erin Harper Salsman owns forty acres of land to the north and east of Mr. Bull's property. She and her son Fred Salsman, III, brought this suit to have the court "establish and declare the old roadway which traverses the defendant's property from Alabama Highway 195 to the plaintiffs' property a permanent right-of-way or easement...." The complaint alleged that "the said easement, right-of-way or roadway is theirs by prescription and that they are also entitled to the said easement by necessity."
The case came on for trial, after which the trial court entered the following judgment:
Mr. Bull appeals, arguing that the Salsmans have not proved facts which would entitle them to either an easement by prescription or an easement of necessity. He cites authorities for the propositions that an easement by prescription can be established only by use for a period of twenty years or more, adverse to the owner of the premises, under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted, with actual or presumptive knowledge of the owner; and an easement by necessity only arises where the dominant and servient estates trace title to a common source.
A common law way of necessity is a type of easement by implication and "rests on the implication that the parties intended and agreed to provide for such a way." Sayre v. Dickerson, 278 Ala. 477, 491, 179 So.2d 57 (Ala.1965). For such an implication to arise, there must have been an original grantor who impliedly granted an easement across his remaining lands to the purchaser of the land-locked parcel. Therefore it has been stated that "[o]riginal unity of ownership of the dominant and servient tenements is always required for an easement of necessity." Helms v. Tullis, 398 So.2d 253, 255 (Ala.1981); see also, Burrow v. Miller, 340 So.2d 779 (Ala.1976); Sayre v. Dickerson, supra; Hamby v. Stepleton, 221 Ala. 536, 130 So. 76 (1930).
This requirement of original unity of ownership is somewhat qualified, however, by the provisions of Code 1975, §§ 18-3-1 through 18-3-3, which allow the owner of a tract of land not within a municipality to acquire a right of way if his land is not adjacent to any public road. The procedure in such actions is the same as in cases of condemnation of lands for public uses, § 18-3-3, and the applicant must pay the owner for the value of the land taken, § 18-3-2. See Cotton v. May, 293 Ala. 212, 301 So.2d 168 (1974); Romano v. Thrower, 261 Ala. 361, 74 So.2d 235 (1954).
Under neither of these types of easements of necessity can the trial court's judgment be affirmed, however. There was no proof of prior unity of ownership of the two parcels. The statutory action to acquire a right of way must be brought in the probate court. Section 18-3-3; Cotton v. May, supra.
If the trial court's judgment is to be affirmed, therefore, it must be on the basis of an easement by prescription. To establish an easement by prescription, the claimant must use the premises over which the easement is claimed for a period of twenty years or more, adversely to the owner of the premises, under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted, with actual or presumptive knowledge of the owner. The presumption is that the use is permissive, and the claimant has the burden of proving that the use was adverse to the owner. Cotton v. May, supra; Belcher v. Belcher, 284 Ala. 254, 224 So.2d 613 (1969); West v. West, 252 Ala. 296, 40 So.2d 873 (1949).
To determine whether the Salsmans have established an easement by prescription, it will be necessary to set out the facts in more detail.
In 1933, Mrs. Salsman's parents, the Harpers, set out to build a vacation cabin on the piece of land to which the Salsmans are now...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
O'Neill Camp, Inc. v. Stuart, No. CV04-0103655 S (CT 9/1/2005)
...321, 325 (1987) (holding that periodic logging operations over rural roadway satisfied continuity requirement); see also Bull v. Salsman, 435 So.2d 27, 30 (Al. 1983); Merrill v. Penrod, 109 Idaho 46, 51, 704 P.2d 950, 955 (Ct.App. 1985); Thompson v. Schuh, 286 Or. 201, 211 593 P.2d 1138, 1144 ...
-
Cellco Partnership v. Shelby County
...the parties intended and agreed to provide for such a way.'"7 Gowan v. Crawford, 599 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala.1992) (quoting Bull v. Salsman, 435 So.2d 27, 29 (Ala.1983)). As opposed to an easement by implication, which requires proof of a pre-existing route of access at the time of severance, a......
-
Stansbury v. Mdr
...tenements is always required for an easement of necessity.'" Gowan v. Crawford, 599 So.2d 619, 621 (Ala.1992) (quoting Bull v. Salsman, 435 So.2d 27 (Ala.1983) (quoting Helms v. Tullis, 398 So.2d 253, 255 (Ala. 11. Walking through the channel would also encroach on Ms. Stansbury's land at t......
-
Clarke v. Tannin, Inc.
...under claim of right, exclusive, continuous, and uninterrupted, with actual or presumptive knowledge of the owner." Bull v. Salsman , 435 So.2d 27, 29 (Ala. 1983). As the defendants point out, (Doc. 113 at 2), seven plaintiffs cannot satisfy the 20-year requirement.7 The plaintiffs do not c......