Howard v. Rivers
| Decision Date | 22 January 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. S95A1793,S95A1793 |
| Parties | HOWARD v. RIVERS et al. |
| Court | Georgia Supreme Court |
B. Daniel Dubberly, III, Dubberly & McGovern, Glenville, for Howard.
Hugh J. McCullough, Cowart & McCullough, Glennville, for Rivers, et al.
Joe and Robert Rivers filed an action against Howard to establish an easement across Howard's land for the purpose of access to adjacent property owned by the Riverses. The basis of the claim of easement was the Riverses' assertion that they had used an existing roadway across Howard's property for the 20 years needed to establish an easement by prescription across wild land pursuant to OCGA § 44-9-1. A jury returned a verdict for the Riverses and, after the trial court denied her motion for new trial, Howard filed this appeal. In all three of her enumerations of error, she raises issues dependent on the evidence, contending that she was entitled to a directed verdict at trial because the evidence was not sufficient to establish the easement, that the verdict and judgment did not adequately identify the location of the easement, and that the trial court should have limited the use of the easement to foot traffic. Because our review of this case persuades us that none of Howard's arguments are supported by the record, we affirm.
1. Southern Gen. Ins. Co. v. Holt, 262 Ga. 267(1), 416 S.E.2d 274 (1992). The evidence at trial established that the Riverses and their agents have used the same road over Howard's property, which the parties agreed are wild lands, for more than 20 years, repairing it when necessary. Howard and her predecessors were on notice of the use, though the Riverses never asked for and the owners of the land never gave permission to use it. Although the use of the road by the Riverses was not daily, there was evidence that their use was of a frequency appropriate to the use of the land, which was hunting and logging. See Chamblee v. Johnson, 200 Ga. 838(1), 38 S.E.2d 721 (1946); Anneberg v. Kurtz, 197 Ga. 188(1), 28 S.E.2d 769 (1944). There being evidence introduced at trial that met the requirements of OCGA § 44-9-1, the trial court did not err in denying Howard's motion for directed verdict.
2. In her second enumeration of error, Howard complains that the judgment does not adequately describe the easement. She does not, however, suggest what the defect in the description is. The description of an easement is sufficient if it provides a key so that the land where the easement is located can be identified. Glass v. Carnes, 260 Ga. 627(4), 398 S.E.2d 7 (1990); Champion v. Neason, 220 Ga. 15, 136 S.E.2d...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
WS CE Resort Owner, LLC v. Holland
...a golf course on a plat, without more, typically does not give reasonable certainty about the scope of any easement in it. See Howard, 266 Ga. at 185 (2); 1 § 8:18. The difficulty is that there is much more to a golf course than a mere strip of land or open area. Even at its most basic, a g......
-
American Southern Ins. Group v. Goldstein
...OCGA § 24-9-67.1(b)(1). 29. Willis v. Kennedy, 267 Ga. 165, 166(2), 476 S.E.2d 246 (1996) (citations omitted). 30. Howard v. Rivers, 266 Ga. 185(1), 465 S.E.2d 666 (1996) (citation and punctuation 31. Second Continental v. Atlanta E-Z Builders, 237 Ga.App. 304, 305-306(1), 514 S.E.2d 846 (1......
-
Stewart v. Stewart, A99A2251.
...382(2), 241 S.E.2d 311. The any evidence standard is also applicable to our review of plaintiffs' motion for new trial. Howard v. Rivers, 266 Ga. 185(1), 465 S.E.2d 666; Burnet v. Bazemore, 122 Ga.App. 73, 74, 176 S.E.2d 184. We conclude that there is evidence that Mrs. Stewart intended tha......
-
Dyer v. Dyer
...exists. Macon-Bibb County Indus. Auth. v. Central of Ga. R. Co., supra at 283(3), 466 S.E.2d 855. See also Howard v. Rivers, 266 Ga. 185, 186(2), 465 S.E.2d 666 (1996); Glass v. Carnes, 260 Ga. 627, 632(4), 398 S.E.2d 7 (1990). But even accepting arguendo that the language in Item Five is n......