Humphries v. Minbiole
| Decision Date | 08 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. M2011-00008-COA-R3-CV,M2011-00008-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | LEROY J. HUMPHRIES, ET AL. v. NICOLAS C. MINBIOLE, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
LEROY J. HUMPHRIES, ET AL.
v.
NICOLAS C. MINBIOLE, ET AL.
No. M2011-00008-COA-R3-CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
June 27, 2012 Session
Filed: November 8, 2012
This appeal involves a dispute between adjacent landowners over Defendants' installation of a private water line within a right-of-way easement across the Plaintiffs' property. Following a bench trial, the trial court concluded that Defendants' private water line trespassed on Plaintiffs' property. Further, the trial court ordered that the Defendants would be incarcerated if they did not remove the water line and return Plaintiffs' property to its previous condition within thirty (30) days. Defendants appealed. We affirm in part and remand for further proceedings.
DAVID R. FARMER, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which HOLLY M. KIRBY, J., and J. STEVEN STAFFORD, J., joined.
Robin J. Gordon, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Nicolas C. Minbiole and Anna A. Minbiole.
John A. Beam, III, and Andrew Cameron, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellees, Leroy J. Humphries and CNMC Land and Livestock Corporation.
Leroy J. Humphries and his corporation, CNMC Land and Livestock Corporation (collectively as "Humphries"), own a substantial amount of rural farmland along Hurricane Ridge Road in DeKalb County, Tennessee. Hurricane Ridge Road is a county road created by implication that runs north along a ridge and dead ends at the top of a ridge before
Page 2
reaching Center Hill Lake. In 2003, Humphries and two neighboring property owners each conveyed a twenty (20) foot right-of-way easement across their respective properties to DeKalb County ("the County") for "highway purposes." The intent of the landowners in conveying the easements to the County was for the extension of Hurricane Ridge Road.
In June 2009, Nicolas C. Minbiole and Anna C. Minbiole ("the Minbioles") purchased a sixty-eight (68) acre property adjoining Humphries' property. The Minbioles warranty deed referenced an easement for ingress and egress to their land from Hurricane Ridge Road across Humphries' property. Although the Minbioles believed their land had access to public water and electricity, it did not. Therefore, after considering multiple options, the Minbioles hired a contractor, Richard Hayes ("Mr. Hayes"), to install a two-inch water line along the County's right-of-way easement across Humphries' property in order to connect with the main public water line approximately 1.1 miles down Hurricane Ridge Road. Before the project began, Mr. Hayes allegedly received permission from the County Superintendent of Roads to install the Minbioles' water line within the County's right-of-way easement.
Upon learning of the Minbioles' plan, Humphries objected to the installation of the water line within the County's right-of-way easement. Despite Humphries' objection, the Minbioles instructed Mr. Hayes to commence construction of their water line. On August 31, 2009, counsel for Humphries sent a cease and desist letter to the Minbioles. Nevertheless, construction of the Minbioles' water line continued. As a result, on September 4, 2009, Humphries filed a complaint in the Chancery Court of DeKalb County seeking to enjoin further installation of the Minbioles' water line. The trial court immediately issued a restraining order enjoining the Minbioles and Mr. Hayes from trespassing and installing the water line. Notwithstanding the restraining order, construction of the water line continued. Later that day, on September 4, 2009, Humphries filed a motion for contempt of court for violations of the restraining order. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Hayes completed the installation of the Minbioles' water line.
On October 2, 2009, the trial court agreed to hear Humphries' motion for contempt together with a hearing on the merits of their complaint. Thereafter, on November 19, 2009, Humphries filed an amended complaint further alleging trespass, private nuisance, and contempt of court. On January 19, 2010, the trial court entered an order requiring a judicial settlement conference in which the parties were to obtain all information necessary to evaluate the case, including any expert reports. Subsequently, on September 7, 2010, after the Minbioles failed to attend the judicial settlement conference as previously ordered, the trial court entered an order requiring the Minbioles to pay reasonable costs and fees to Humphries.
On November 15, 2010, a bench trial was conducted in this matter. At the conclusion
Page 3
of the trial, the trial court concluded that the Minbioles' private water line trespassed on Humphries' property. In light of the fact that the Minbioles "thumbed their nose at the legal process", the trial court ordered them to remove the water line within thirty (30) days or else they would be incarcerated. On December 15, 2010, the trial court entered an order memorializing its ruling. Thereafter, the Minbioles filed a motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, and later filed a motion pursuant to Rule 60.01 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure in which they asked the trial court to clarify the language in its final order stating that the Minbioles were found in contempt of court. On February 22, 2010, the trial court entered an order granting the Minbioles' motion to stay the judgment pending appeal. Further, the trial court granted the Minbioles' Rule 60.01 motion and modified the final order, striking the language from the order which stated that the Minbioles were found in contempt of court. The Minbioles timely filed a notice of appeal to this Court.1
We substantially restate and consolidate the issues presented on appeal as follows:
(1) Whether the trial court erred in finding that the Minbioles' water line trespassed on Humphries' property, and
(2) Whether the trial court erred by ordering removal of the water line.
We review the trial court's findings of fact de novo on the record, with a presumption of correctness unless the evidence preponderates otherwise. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). If the trial court fails to make a specific finding of fact on a particular matter, we review the facts in the record under a purely de novo standard to determine where the preponderance of the evidence lies. In re Valentine, 79 S.W.3d 539, 546 (Tenn. 2002) (citing Fields v. State, 40 S.W.3d 450, 457 n. 5 (Tenn. 2001)). We afford great deference to the trial court's determinations on the credibility of witnesses. Hughes v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville & Davidson Cnty., 340 S.W.3d 352, 360 (Tenn. 2011); Estate of Walton v. Young, 950 S.W.2d 956, 959 (Tenn. 1997). We review the trial court's conclusions on matters of law de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Tenn. R. App. P. 13(d). Likewise, our review of the trial court's application of the law to the facts is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. State v. Ingram, 331 S.W.3d 746, 755 (Tenn. 2011).
Page 4
We begin by addressing the Minbioles' argument that the trial court erred in finding that their water line trespassed on Humphries' property. The Minbioles argue that, because the installation of public utilities is a permissible use of a right-of-way easement for...
To continue reading
Request your trial