Hall v. Pippin
| Decision Date | 23 September 1998 |
| Citation | 984 S.W.2d 617 |
| Parties | Mary F. HALL and Don K. Hall, Plaintiffs/Appellees, v. Mary Rose PIPPIN and Dale Delaney, Defendants/Appellants. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Manuel F. Edwards, Cookeville, T. Michael O'Mara, Cookeville, for Plaintiffs/Appellees.
William R. Draper, Cookeville, Thomas F. Bloom, Nashville, Jerry Scott, Murfreesboro, Willam Capelle Keaton, Hohenwald, for Defendants/Appellants.
This appeal stems from a dispute between neighbors over the use of an old road in rural Putnam County. After the owners of one tract began to erect a fence across the road, the owners of the neighboring tract filed suit in the Chancery Court for Putnam County seeking injunctive and declaratory relief concerning their right to continue to use the road to gain access to their property. The trial court heard the case without a jury and determined that the disputed road ran along the roadbed of an old public road and that the abutting landowners had not abandoned their use of the old road even though it had ceased being used by the general public. Accordingly, the trial court granted the plaintiff landowners an easement over the portion of the defendant neighbors' property where the old road ran. On this appeal, the defendant neighbors assert that the old road had been abandoned by both the general public and the abutting landowners. Accordingly, they insist that the old road could not supply a basis for an easement. We have determined that the judgment should be affirmed.
The disputed property in this case lies approximately half way between the towns of Baxter and Boma in rural Putnam County. Carmel and Nettie Allison purchased the property at a judicial sale in June 1942. Six years later, they sold a 55-acre tract to Iva and Minnie Lowe. At that time, the property was bordered on the east by a railroad right-of-way; on the north, by property owned by the Allisons; and on the west by an old country road variously known as the "Elmore Road," the "old Boma-Baxter Road," the "road to Elmore Town," or the "old Buffalo Valley Road."
In January 1973, Floyd and Belle Herron purchased the 12 to 15-acre tract immediately north of the 55-acre tract and west of the old Boma-Baxter Road. At the same time, the Herrons and their son purchased other property to the east of old Boma-Baxter Road intending to build several homes for resale. The 12 to 15-acre tract contained a house built by Carmel Allison and on the northern boundary of the property was a road built by Mr. Allison to provide access to Old Baxter Road which was located to the west of the railroad right-of-way. This road, known as Friendly Road, ran from east to west. Its western end intersected with Old Baxter Road, and its eastern end intersected with the old Boma-Baxter Road.
In 1974, Mr. Herron began to construct a house on a tract east of the old Boma-Baxter Road. After deciding that Friendly Road would provide the best access to the property, he undertook to improve a portion of the old Boma-Baxter Road south of its intersection with Friendly Road. This portion of the old road ran essentially from north to south. Because the old road had been little used over the preceding decades, Mr. Herron was required to grade and gravel it to make it passable. Mr. Herron's improvements to the old Boma-Baxter Road ended at the northern boundary of the 55-acre tract of property. The improved portion of the old Boma-Baxter Road came to be known as Friendly Drive.
Arnold and Helen Bean purchased the 55-acre tract in September 1972. 1 The property was still undeveloped farm property. In November 1980, the Beans purchased a 3.48-acre tract immediately to the north of 55-acre tract. 2 During the time he owned the property, Mr. Bean used a relatively short dirt roadway extending south from the end of the improved portion of Friendly Drive to drive his tractor to a barn located on the northern portion of the 55-acre tract.
In 1985, the Beans entered into a land sale installment contract with Don and Mary Hall for the 55-acre tract. 3 At that time, the property could be accessed only two ways--either from the Old Baxter Road to the west or from Friendly Drive on the north using the graveled extension of Friendly Drive that had been used by the Beans while they owned the property. The Halls continued to use the graveled extension to gain access to the barn. When the Halls constructed a log home on their property in the late 1980's, they obtained permission from the owners of the 3.48-acre tract to install a culvert along the graveled extension from Friendly Drive, and they also extended the gravel extension from the end of Friendly Drive to their new house.
In the meantime, Mary Rose and Robert Pippin decided to move back to the Baxter area and requested Ms. Pippin's son, Dale Delaney, to look out for suitable property. Mr. Delaney discovered that the 3.48-acre tract was available, and in November 1993, the Pippins purchased the property from the Bohns who had purchased it from the Beans seven years earlier. Prior to the sale, Mr. Bohn told the Pippins that the graveled lane extending south from the end of Friendly Drive was on their property and that they could do anything with their property that they desired. No one mentioned the old Boma-Baxter Road, and when the Pippins examined the records in the register's office, they found no evidence of a recorded easement or right-of-way for the old Boma- Baxter Road or the graveled extension of Friendly Drive.
Ms. Pippin moved into the house, and Mr. Delaney apparently moved his mobile home onto the property. Shortly after moving onto the property, Ms. Pippin and Mr. Delaney began to erect a fence around their property. After Ms. Pippin installed metal fence posts across the graveled extension to Friendly Drive blocking the Halls' driveway, the Halls filed suit in the Chancery Court for Putnam County seeking an injunction preventing Ms. Pippin and Mr. Delaney from interfering with their use of the graveled extension of Friendly Drive and requesting a declaration of their continuing right to use the graveled extension.
The trial court heard the case without a jury and determined that Friendly Drive and the graveled extension of Friendly Drive lay on the roadbed of the old Boma-Baxter Road. The court also found that the old Boma-Baxter Road had been a public road, and that the old road had not been abandoned by abutting landowners even though it had fallen into desuetude as a public road. Accordingly, the trial court declared that the landowners living adjacent to the old road continued to have a legally-protected private easement over the old roadway to access their property. Thus, the trial court granted the Halls a fifteen feet wide easement across Ms. Pippin's property from the dead end of Friendly Drive south to their property. Ms. Pippin and Mr. Delaney have appealed.
The pivotal issue in this case concerns whether the record contains sufficient evidence to support the trial court's conclusion that Friendly Drive and the graveled extension of Friendly Drive that ran along the roadbed of the old Boma-Baxter Road had not been abandoned by the abutting landowners. We have reviewed the evidence presented to the trial court 4 in accordance with Tenn. R.App. P. 13(d) and have determined that the evidence does not preponderate against the trial court's conclusion that the abutting landowners had not abandoned the road.
An easement is an interest in property that confers on its holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose. See Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). Owners of property abutting a once public road continue to have a private access easement over that road to their property even after the road loses its character as a public road. See Knierim v. Leatherwood, 542 S.W.2d 806, 810 (Tenn.1976). However, like any other easement, these private access easements may be abandoned. See Jacoway v. Palmer, 753 S.W.2d 675, 677-78 (Tenn.Ct.App.1987); Cottrell v. Daniel, 30 Tenn.App. 339, 344-45, 205 S.W.2d 973, 975-76 (1947).
The party asserting abandonment of an easement must prove it by clear, unequivocal evidence. See Miller v. Street, 663 S.W.2d 797, 798 (Tenn.Ct.App.1983). In order to prove abandonment, the party with the burden of proof must show not only an intention to abandon the easement but also external acts carrying that intention into effect. See Cottrell v. Daniel, 30 Tenn.App. at 343, 205 S.W.2d at 975. Thus, nonuse of the easement by the abutting landowner or landowners is not sufficient, by itself, to prove abandonment. Nonuse must be coupled with proof that the easement holder or holders intended to abandon the easement. See Edminston Corp. v. Carpenter, 540 S.W.2d 260, 262 (Tenn.Ct.App.1976); Cottrell v. Daniel, 30 Tenn.App. at 344, 205 S.W.2d at 975. This intention may be proved with evidence of acts clearly indicating that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Law v. Monongahela Power Co.
...whether the lower court made that determination and considered it in regard to granting summary judgment. 15. See Hall v. Pippin, 984 S.W.2d 617 (Tenn.Ct. App.1998) (holding that owners of property abutting once public road continue to have private access easement over that road to their pr......
- Shealy v. Policy Studies, Inc., No. E2005-01124-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 8/29/2006), E2005-01124-COA-R3-CV.
- Butler v. White, No. W2005-01382-COA-R3-CV (TN 1/12/2006)
-
Holder v. Serodino
...property that confers on its holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose." Hall v. Pippin, 984 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998); see also Pevear v. Hunt, 924 S.W.2d 114, 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996). Easements may arise in a number of ways in Tennes......