Huggins v. Wright
| Decision Date | 21 December 2000 |
| Docket Number | No. 97-CA-00472-SCT.,97-CA-00472-SCT. |
| Citation | 774 So.2d 408 |
| Parties | Johnny HUGGINS and Judy Ragle Huggins v. Tommy WRIGHT and Wanda Wright. |
| Court | Mississippi Supreme Court |
John A. Ferrell, P.A., Booneville, Attorney for Appellants.
Joey M. Cobb, Iuka, Attorney for Appellees.
Before PRATHER, C.J., MILLS AND COBB, JJ.
COBB, Justice, for the Court:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
¶ 1. Johnny and Judy Ragle Huggins filed a complaint requesting the Tishomingo County Chancery Court to establish the boundary line between their property and the adjacent property owned by Tommy and Wanda Wright. The complaint also requested that the court establish an easement across the Wrights' property for ingress/egress by the Hugginses and for utilities. The court found that the Hugginses were entitled to an easement by necessity for ingress/egress and utilities, and that it should be 25 feet in width and located in the old roadway which then existed across the Wrights' property. The court further found that if the Wrights determined that the existing roadway location was onerous and objectionable, the Wrights had the option to relocate the easement to a place of their choosing, entirely at their expense. The court denied all other relief requested.
¶ 2. Although they agreed with the grant of the easement, the Hugginses appealed to this Court from the chancery court's decision, presenting the following two issues for our consideration:
¶ 3. The Wrights agreed that the Hugginses are entitled to an easement but filed a cross-appeal objecting to the location, size and purpose of the easement, and to the location of the boundary line. The four issues presented for our review on cross-appeal have been combined into one, as follows:
III. WHETHER OR NOT THE CHANCELLOR'S DECISION REGARDING THE LOCATION, SIZE, AND PURPOSE OF THE EASEMENT AND THE LOCATION OF THE SECTION LINE WAS CONTRARY TO LAW AND AGAINST THE OVERWHELMING WEIGHT OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED.
¶ 4. Finding no error, we affirm the chancellor's decision.
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
¶ 5. The Wrights and the Hugginses are owners of certain adjacent tracts of land located in Tishomingo County, Mississippi. The Wrights acquired their five acre tract two months after the Hugginses' 110 acre tract was acquired. The Wrights acknowledged that the Hugginses would need an easement. However, when the local power company required the Hugginses to have a written and recorded utility easement 40 feet wide in order to supply electrical power to the Hugginses' tract of land, the Wrights refused to grant the easement because they did not like the location and size of the 40 foot easement. The Hugginses had understood that the easement would be for ingress/egress and utilities, and that it would be located over the old road bed that had been used for many years to get in and out of the Hugginses' tract. The Wrights offered to relocate the easement but the Hugginses declined to accept the offer. After the Wrights refused to grant the easement across the old roadway, the Hugginses had the electrical service line run across the property of another adjoining neighbor. At the time of trial, the Hugginses still did not have water to their home because the Wrights refused to grant the easement.
¶ 6. The Wrights also contested the location of the section line between the two properties. Tommy Wright testified that the section line was approximately 90 feet north of where the licensed professional engineer and surveyor had located it.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 7. In appeals from the chancery court, this Court's scope of review is limited. This Court "will not disturb the findings of a chancellor unless he is manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous, or an erroneous legal standard was applied." Weeks v. Thomas, 662 So.2d 581, 583 (Miss.1995) (citing Jordon v. Warren, 602 So.2d 809, 812 (Miss.1992)). "When a chancellor's findings are supported by substantial credible evidence in the record this Court will not reverse." Id.
DISCUSSION
¶ 8. "An easement may be acquired by express grant, implied grant (implication), or prescription, which presupposes a grant to have existed." Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 511 So.2d 112, 116 (Miss.1987). An easement by necessity arises by implied grant when a part of a commonly-owned tract of land is severed in such a way that either portion of the property has been rendered inaccessible except by passing over the other portion or by trespassing on the lands of another. Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906, 908 (Miss.1989). The fact that the dominant and servient estates originated from the severance of a "commonly-owned tract of land" is undisputed in the present case. The parties agree that the Hugginses are entitled to an easement by necessity across the Wrights' five acre tract.
¶ 9. An easement by necessity requires no written conveyance because it is a vested right for successive holders of the dominant tenement and remains binding on successive holders of the servient tenement. See Broadhead v. Terpening, 611 So.2d 949, 954 (Miss.1992)
(). See also Pitts v. Foster, 743 So.2d 1066, 1068 (Miss.Ct.App.1999).
Rowell v. Turnage, 618 So.2d 81, 86 (Miss. 1993).
¶ 10. The facts of this case are analogous to the facts found in Taylor v. Hays, 551 So.2d 906 (Miss.1989). In Taylor, this Court affirmed the lower court's decree which allowed a substituted easement to be provided according to the order of the court and at the expense of the holder of the servient tenement who requested that the easement be relocated. Id. at 909-10. The Court found that the holders of the dominant tenement had an easement by necessity, arising by implication, and had not provided any evidence that would indicate that a loss, decrease in value, or even inconvenience would be incurred by a substitution or relocation of the easement. Id. The Court limited its holding to the particular facts of the case and specifically stated in a footnote that the holding would not support other circumstances, i.e., when the owner of the dominant tenement would be harmed or caused to sustain a financial loss or a decrease in value to his property. Id. at 910. The Court continued and stated that "just any kind of substituted easement might not suffice." Id.
¶ 11. The Wrights claim that they should not be required to pay for the relocation of the easement, citing Rawls v. Warren, 227 Miss. 299, 85 So.2d 914 (1956), in which this Court held that a easement relocation expense must be borne by the dominant tenant. Their reliance on Rawls is misplaced, however, for there the chancellor found that the servient tenant had a duty to select a reasonable and fair route across his land, and only if the route was fair and reasonable was the expense and cost of constructing and maintaining the way to be placed upon the dominant tenant. Id. at 914-15. Rawls, the dominant tenant, was requesting the easement since no roadway existed. The chancellor found the tendered way, as selected by the servient tenant, to be fair, just and reasonable to all parties. Id. at 915. Thus, the cost of constructing and maintaining the way was the duty of the dominant tenant. In Taylor v. Hays, there was already in existence a permissive easement with an established roadway that was in use. Taylor, 551 So.2d at 908. When the servient land was going to be purchased by a new owner, the new owner stipulated that the purchase would be subject to being able to relocate the easement. The chancellor found that the dominant tenants had an easement by necessity, arising by implication. Id. at 908. Since an easement was already in place, the chancellor allowed the servient tenants to move the easement at their own expense in order to accommodate their own needs.
¶ 12. The chancellor considered all of the testimony and facts of this case and was fair, just and reasonable to all parties in his ruling. He allowed the Wrights the option of relocating the easement, in part because the old existing roadway divides their property in half. We find that there was credible evidence in the record to support the grant of this easement of necessity to be 25 feet and the purpose as stated to be for ingress/egress and for utilities. Although the necessity for a power line easement has ceased to exist, Johnny Huggins testified that he would also need a water line. He acknowledged that it would be his responsibility to run the water line from the meter on the road to his house. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Tomecek v. Bavas
...of Land, 558 F.Supp. 1379, 1381-1382 (D.Mass., 1983) (easement by necessity includes the right to install utilities); Huggins v. Wright, 774 So.2d 408, 412 (Miss., 2000) (providing easement by necessity for ingress and egress and for Plaintiffs assert that the utility services they seek to ......
-
Wise v. Kansas City Life Ins. Co.
...described infra, has adopted what has become known as the "American Rule" in the handling of attorney fee requests. Huggins v. Wright, 774 So.2d 408, 412 (Miss.2000); Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 803 F.Supp. 1167, 1178 (N.D.Miss.1992). Unlike countries which follow the "English Ru......
-
Henderson v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C. (In re Huffman)
...Rule and does not normally assess attorney's fees against the losing party in the absence of statutory authority. Huggins v. Wright, 774 So.2d 408, 412 (Miss.2000). His reasonable attorney's fees and costs, however, are recoverable as part of his § 526 claim, as noted previously.CONCLUSION ......
-
Favre v. Jourdan River Estates
... ... Huggins v. Wright, 774 So.2d 408, 410 ( 8) (Miss.2000) (quoting Dethlefs v. Beau Maison Dev. Corp., 511 So.2d 112, 116 (Miss.1987) ). In Lanier v ... ...