Keenan v. Fodor
| Decision Date | 30 July 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. M2011-01475-COA-R3-CV,M2011-01475-COA-R3-CV |
| Parties | ROBERT KEENAN, SR., ET AL. v. BARRY C. FODOR, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
ROBERT KEENAN, SR., ET AL.
v.
BARRY C. FODOR, ET AL.
No. M2011-01475-COA-R3-CV
COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
December 6, 2011 Session
Filed July 30, 2012
This case arose from a dispute between neighbors over the ownership of an elaborate stone and metal gate used for entry into both their residential properties. The predecessors-in-interest of the defendants installed the gate at their own expense, placing it on an easement over the plaintiffs' adjoining lot. The plaintiffs decided to sell their house, and included a picture and a description of the gate in their real estate listing and advertisements. The defendants asserted that they owned the gate and compelled the plaintiffs' realtor to remove all mention of the gate from sales materials. The plaintiffs then filed a complaint to quiet title. After a bench trial, the court found that the gate belonged to the defendants and dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint. The plaintiffs argue on appeal that the trial court erred because the gate is a fixture and, thus, that it has become part of the plaintiffs' property by operation of law. We affirm the trial court.
PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, P.J., M.S., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR. and RICHARD H. DINKINS, JJ., joined.
Kristin J. Fecteau, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Robert Keenan, Sr. and Debra B. Keenan.
Tara L. Swafford, Lauren Cooney, Franklin, Tennessee, for the appellees, Barry C. Fodor and Deborah A. Fodor.
Page 2
Robert and Deborah Keenan (the Keenans) owned three adjoining lots in Ashland City's Sycamore Valley subdivision, numbers 11, 12 and 13. Their home was on lot 11. Lot 12 was subject to a fifty foot recorded easement along its northern border that benefitted the owners of a home located on another lot that adjoined Lot 12, by giving them access to the main road, Sycamore Valley Drive. The street address of that adjoining lot was 75 Golf Club Lane. Michael and Debbie Rutherford (the Rutherfords) were the owners of the home at 75 Golf Club Lane when the events that led up to this case began.
In 1998, the Rutherfords told the Keenans that they wanted to build a gate on the lot 12 easement because of problems they were having with trespassers and vandals. The Keenans did not object.1 The Rutherfords then designed, paid for, and built the elaborate structure that is the subject of this lawsuit. Debbie Rutherford testified that the total cost of building the gate was between $19,000 and $25,000.
The gate itself is made up of two ornamented wrought iron sections that swing open on hinges fixed to steel posts. The posts are attached to columns of concrete block that are faced with stone and flanked by two curved stone walls or wings. The span between the far ends of the two wings is about 32 feet. A portion of one of those wings extends outside the boundaries of lot 12, encroaching on the county right of way. Electrical and phone lines are connected to a call box at the gate, which can be opened remotely by hydraulic cylinders. The gate is illuminated by electric lights. The proof showed that the electric and phone bills have always been sent to the residents of 75 Golf Club Lane.
In 2003, Keenans built a new house on Lot 13 and sold their home on Lot 11. The street address of the new home was 25 Golf Club Lane. The Keenans asked the Rutherfords if they could use the gate for access to their new home, and with the agreement of the Rutherfords, they built a driveway from the gate to their home. The Rutherfords and the Keenans were apparently able to share the use of the gate without any problems. According to their testimony, they never expressly discussed the question of who owned the gate.
In April of 2006, Barry and Deborah Fodor (The Fodors) purchased the home at 75 Golf Club Lane from the Rutherfords. The record includes a sales brochure for the sale of
Page 3
the Rutherford Home which the Fodors testified they relied upon when they purchased it. The brochure included a photograph of the gate and a list of property features. One of the listed exterior features was a "custom stone and iron privacy gate." The brochure was drafted by the Rutherfords' realtor, and was printed by the Keenan Group, Inc., a firm operated by Debra Keenan.
For the first six or seven months after they moved in, the Fodors and the Keenans shared the use of the gate without any problems. The Keenans even asked the Fodors if they had any objections to a brick and aluminum fence that they planned to erect at the edges of lots 12 and 13 on either side of the gate. The Fodors agreed to the fence, but told the Keenans not to attach it to the gate, and the Keenans obliged.
However, a dispute arose between the parties in October of 2007. Debra Keenan decorated the gate with scarecrows and the gate began to malfunction shortly thereafter.2 Barry Fodor told Robert Keenan that he needed to consult with the Fodors before putting any decorations on the gate. Debra Keenan subsequently called Deborah Fodor and told her that no consultation was needed, because the Keenans were the legal owners of the Gate.3 Communications between the parties thereafter came to an end.
In November of 2009, the Keenans decided to sell their home at 25 Golf Club Lane. The MLS listing for the home included a photograph of the gate and a description that begins, "These beautiful custom stacked stone and iron gates welcome visitors and help keep out unwanted guests. . ." The same photograph of the gate was included in an advertisement printed under the letterhead of the Keenan Group.
After they saw the MLS listing, the Fodors retained an attorney. He sent a letter to the Keenans on November 23, 2009, stating that the Keenans were not entitled to represent to potential purchasers that they owned the gate and demanding that they remove any reference to the gate in their advertising by December 9, or "my clients will have no choice but to take action to make sure that any purchasers of your property are not given the wrong impression of who owns the gate." A copy of the letter was sent to the Keenans' realtor, who made the requested changes to the MLS listing. Debra Keenan did not change her advertisements.
Page 4
On December 21, 2009, the Keenans filed a Complaint to Quiet Title in the Chancery Court of Cheatham County, naming the Fodors as defendants. The Keenans claimed that because the gate is a permanent structure affixed to realty that they own, it must be considered a fixture to the realty and is therefore their property. They accordingly asked the court to remove the cloud on their title caused by the Fodors' claim of ownership. They also asked for damages in the amount of $75,000 for defamation of title and another $75,000 for tortious interference with economic advantage.
The Fodors filed an Answer on January 27, 2010. They asked for a declaratory judgment that they are the true owners of the gate. They also asserted several counter-claims against the Keenans, including claims for fraud and promissory estoppel, and they asked for $200,000 in damages. In the alternative, the Fodors asked for compensation for unjust enrichment in the event that the court should rule in favor of the Keenans on the issue of ownership. The Keenans filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The Keenans subsequently withdrew all their claims for money damages, other than attorney fees and court costs.
The court conducted two full days of hearings on May 12 and 13, 2011, and heard extensive testimony by the Keenans, the Rutherfords, and the Fodors. Other witnesses testified briefly, including the realtor who sold the Rutherford home to the Fodors, the Cheatham County property assessor, and a technician from the company that services the gate.
The accounts of the parties as to the communications between them were at odds in a few instances. For example, Deborah Fodor testified that prior to the scarecrow incident, Debra Keenan admitted that the gate belonged to the Fodors, but made a point of informing her that it was located on the Keenans' property. Debra Keenan denied that any such communication ever occurred.4 For the most part, however, the testimony of the parties (and of the Rutherfords) was consistent on the salient facts.
Page 5
For example, it was undisputed that the Rutherfords designed and built the gate at their own expense, without any input from the Keenans. It was also undisputed that the Keenans did not object to the construction of the gate on the Lot 12 easement and that the Keenans used the gate after they moved to their new home on Lot 13. Debra Keenan even acknowledged that the existence of the gate provided a valuable security benefit to her and her husband. She testified, however, that she always believed that the Keenans owned the gate, but she never told the Rutherfords about her belief, because "I didn't think it was necessary."
The proof showed that first the Rutherfords, and then the Fodors, paid to have the gate insured. It was stipulated at trial that...
To continue reading
Request your trial