Carter v. Stringfellow
| Decision Date | 16 January 1975 |
| Parties | Beverly CARTER et al. v. Earl Martin STRINGFELLOW, Sr., and Earl Martin Stringfellow, Jr. S.C. 644. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
James R. Davis, Birmingham, for appellants.
Stone, Patton & Kierce, Bessemer, for appellees.
William M. Acker, Jr., Birmingham, amicus curiae.
This is an appeal from a decree entered in a declaratory action wherein the complainants (appellants here) sought a declaration concerning the character and extent of certain easements and restrictions as to the use of a lake, as well as the extent of appellants' property interests in said lake. The lake was created by the respondents or their predecessors in title, and the complainants are purchasers of lots in a subdivision adjacent to the lake, which subdivision was developed by the respondents or their predecessors in title.
The residential lots involved in this case were located in a subdivision known as Paradise Acres. This subdivision abuts on a lake known as Paradise Lake. Mattie L. Stringfellow, now deceased, was the owner and subdivider of Paradise Acres when a plat of that subdivision was recorded. Earl Martin Stringfellow, Sr., one of the appellees, was the sole beneficiary under the last will and testament of Mittie L. Stringfellow, his wife, and by virtue of Mattie L. Stringfellow's will, is now the owner of the lake and the undeveloped area around the lake.
The Paradise Acres subdivision was subject to certain restrictions which were recorded in the office of the Probate Judge of Jefferson County, Alabama, on 9 July 1959, by Mattie L. Stringfellow. The pertinent portions of the instrument setting forth the restrictions and conditions of the owner are as follows:
'WHEREAS, the said Owner desires to establish certain building restrictions and limitations applicable to all of the lots in said survey, and to lake privileges incident thereto, now
'THEREFORE, the undersigned does hereby adopt the following restrictions and limitations which shall be applicable to all of the lots in said survey and said lake privileges, which restrictions and limitations are as follows:
'4. There is reserved a permanent easement of twenty (20) feet measured from the water's edge across each lot and around the entire proposed lake, as a passageway for pedestrian travel, it being understood that such easement is not to be open to vehicular travel of any kind.
It also appears that in a map or plat of the Second Sector of Paradise Acres, which Sector is nearest the lake, shows that a strip of land of varying width, depending upon the distance between the edge of the lake and the boundaries of the lots contiguous to the strip, is designated as 'Easement for Access to Lake.' This plat was recorded in the Office of the Probate Judge of Jefferson County on 6 May 1960.
Appellants filed a bill for declaratory judgment alleging that the appellees were the owners of Paradise Lake, subject to the rights of appellants in said lake. The bill further alleged that appellees have caused a portion of the land surrounding the lake to be zoned for condominiums and town houses and that appellees had advised appellants that the use and control of the lake would be turned over to the developer of the condominiums. It was also alleged that Earl Stringfellow, Jr., acted as his father's agent in development of the subdivision and that he had represented to appellants that the development of all the land surrounding the lake would be in a manner similar to the single family residential development which had already been completed. Appellants also alleged that the easement along the rear of the lots (which bordered the lake) was to be utilized for the installation of sewer lines to serve the condominium development, although such easement did not expressly authorize installtion of utilities.
The appellants' bill for declaratory judgment sought a decree declaring that appellants and other owners of lots in the Paradise Acres subdivision be declared the owners of Paradise Lake, that the number of users of said lake be limited to the numbers which would result from a development of the remaining portion of the 'Stringfellow property' in a manner similar to the present development (single family residential use), that Earl Stringfellow, Sr., and Earl Stringfellow, Jr., be held liable in damages for any loss sustained by reason of a change in the use of remaining properties surrounding Paradise Lake in violation of the representations made to appellants as to the use of the lake, and that the rights of the Stringfellows and their successors in title in the easement surrounding the lake be limited to ingress and egress only.
The parties stipulated that the issues for trial would be limited to the following: (1) whether there was a right to construct a sewer within the twenty-foot strip above the water line along the northerly edge of the lake without obtaining a sewer easement, (2) whether a sewer could be laid within the lake bed itself, and (3) the rights of the parties to use the lake and whether there were any limitations thereon as to appellants or appellees.
After a full hearing, the Chancellor found and decreed: (1) that the twenty-foot easement from the water's edge created by the 'restriction' document filed by Mattie L. Stringfellow was for pedestrian travel only and would not permit a sewer line to intrude into the boundaries of the lots of the appellants, (2) that the 'Easement for Access to Lake' strip imposed by the recorded plat of 6 May 1960, would permit Mattie L. Stringfellow and her successors in title to lay a sewer line partly i the strip itself and partly in the lake bed, in that Mattie L. Stringfellow and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Blalock v. Conzelman
...and character of the easement." Duke v. Pine Crest Homes, Inc., 358 So.2d 148, 150 (Ala.1978) (emphasis added); see Carter v. Stringfellow, 293 Ala. 525, 306 So.2d 273 (1975) ("The right to use the land on which an easement has been dedicated remains in the owner of the servient estate so l......
-
Teitel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
...the purpose and character of the easement." Price v. McNeil, 771 So.2d 1054, 1055 (Ala. Civ.App.2000) (quoting Carter v. Stringfellow, 293 Ala. 525, 306 So.2d 273, 276 (1975)). The Defendant's citation to this authority does not settle the issue; rather, it raises the question of whether th......
-
Bivens v. Mobley
...the Alabama Supreme Court and allow the easement's use for activities which do not "materially affect" it. Carter v. Stringfellow, 293 Ala. 525, 306 So.2d 273, 276 (Ala.1975). That court permitted a sewer line to be laid along an easement that had solely granted access to a lake; the line w......
-
Brantley v. Meeks
...character of the easement.' Duke v. Pine Crest Homes, Inc., 358 So. 2d 148, 150 (Ala. 1978) (emphasis added); see Carter v. Stringfellow, 293 Ala. 525, 306 So. 2d 273 (1975) ('The right to use the land on which an easement has been dedicated remains in the owner of the servient estate so lo......