Mitchell v. Chance

• Decision Date: 12 April 2004
• Docket Number: No. M2002-01239-COA-R3-CV.,M2002-01239-COA-R3-CV.
• Citation: 149 S.W.3d 40
• Parties: Kenneth W. MITCHELL, et al. v. Homer E. CHANCE, et al.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

149 S.W.3d 40

Kenneth W. MITCHELL, et al. v. Homer E. CHANCE, et al.

No. M2002-01239-COA-R3-CV.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, at Nashville.

May 7, 2003 Session.

April 12, 2004.

Permission to Appeal Denied by Supreme Court October 11, 2004.

George E. Copple, Jr., Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Kenneth W. Mitchell and Michael S. Clement.

John Lee Williams, Waverly, Tennessee, for the appellees, Homer E. Chance and Chance Limited Partnership.

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which BEN H. CANTRELL, P.J., M.S., and PATRICIA J. COTTRELL, J., joined.

OPINION

This appeal involves a dispute between neighbors regarding the use of a county road in rural Humphreys County. After one of the landowners began to use the road to cross the neighboring landowners' property, the neighboring landowners erected barricades in the road and later filed a trespass action in the Chancery Court for Humphreys County. The landowners who desired to use the road counterclaimed to establish their right of way along the road. Following a bench trial, the trial court sided with those landowners. On this appeal, the neighboring landowners take issue with the trial court's refusal to consider parol evidence regarding the meaning of the references to the road in the deeds. We affirm the trial court's decision that the references to the road in the deeds are not ambiguous, as well as its decision to admit extrinsic evidence to determine the location of the road. We have also determined that the evidence fully supports the trial court's decision regarding the location and dimensions of the road.

I.

Dr. Kenneth Mitchell and Michael Clement hunted together frequently in Hickman County. In 1994, Dr. Mitchell purchased 32 acres of wooded property in Hickman County to have a place to hunt. One year later, when a 76-acre tract of property on Dr. Mitchell's western boundary line became available for sale, Dr. Mitchell invited Mr. Clement to join him in buying the property for recreation and hunting. In October 1995, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement purchased the 76-acre tract and an adjoining one-half acre tract from Alfred and Brenda Peek.

The 76-acre tract lay between two other tracts owned by the Peeks. One tract to the northwest contained 114 acres; the other tract to the south contained 31 acres. An established dirt road called "Woods Road" ran along the boundary line of the 76-acre and the 114-acre tracts, and then turned south and ran over a portion of the 76-acre tract. The Peeks' deed conveying the 76-acre tract to Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement stated that the conveyance was "subject to the right-of-way of Woods Road" and also referred to "Woods Road" in the metes and bounds description of the 76-acre tract.¹ The Peeks also granted Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement a 50-foot road easement along the western boundary of their 31-acre tract. Apparently, the southern terminus of Woods Road connected with this road easement.²

In March 1996, the Peeks sold their 31-acre tract to Homer and Margaret Chance. The deed stated that it was subject to the right of way of Little Hurricane Creek Road and to the 50-foot road easement along the western boundary that had been granted to Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement six months earlier. In June 1996, the Chances purchased the Peeks' remaining 114-acre tract. This deed also contained references to "Woods Road" in its metes and bounds description.³ Thus, from and after March 1996, the 114-acre and the 31-acre tracts owned by the Chances were separated by the 76-acre tract owned by Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement.

In the summer of 1996, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement hired a contractor to bulldoze a large field along the boundary line between their 76-acre tract and the Chances' 114-acre tract. They also had Woods Road bulldozed from the 50-foot road easement at the southeast corner of their tract towards the Chances' property in order to widen it and clear out the overgrowth around the road. Mr. Chance and other members of his family began to use the portion of Woods Road crossing the 76-acre tract to access their 31-acre tract in order to cut hay or tend to their soybean field. They used Woods Road from June 1996 through the next year with no objection from either Dr. Mitchell or Mr. Clement.

Sometime in 1997, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement erected barriers over Woods Road to prevent the Chances from using the road. The Chances continued to use Woods Road by simply driving around the barriers. In July 1998, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Chance discussed an alternate route for the Chances to access their 31-acre tract. Later, in July 1999, Mr. Chance hired a bulldozer operator to clear a road between their 31-acre tract and their 114-acre tract.

On September 10, 1999, Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement filed a trespass action against Mr. Chance in the Chancery Court for Humphreys County. Mr. Chance answered and counterclaimed that he had permission from Dr. Mitchell to make the new road as an accommodation for relinquishing his right to use Woods Road. Mr. Chance asserted that this right to use Woods Road was reflected in the language of the Peeks' deed of their 76-acres to Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement. The trial court later permitted the Chance Limited Partnership to intervene because it had become the successor in interest to both the 114-acre and the 31-acre tracts purchased by the Chances.

Mr. Chance objected to the original trespass claim being brought in chancery court because it simply sought damages. After Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement voluntarily dismissed their complaint without prejudice,⁴ the trial court conducted a bench trial on April 2, 2002 solely on Mr. Chance's counterclaim. On April 16, 2002, the trial court entered a final order concluding that the 76-acre tract was subject to an easement or right of way denominated as "Woods Road" that had been reserved by the Peeks for the purpose of ingress and egress between the 31-acre tract and the 114-acre tract. The court also concluded that this right of way passed to the Chances when the Peeks sold them the two tracts. Accordingly, the trial court concluded that the Chance Limited Partnership was "entitled to free and uninterrupted use and passage for ingress, egress, and regress" over Woods Road and that Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement should be enjoined from interfering with the Chances' use of the right of way. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement have appealed.

II. THE AMBIGUITY OF THE REFERENCES TO "WOODS ROAD" IN DR. MITCHELL'S AND MR. CLEMENT'S DEED

The parties agree that the 1995 deed for the 76-acre tract created an easement appurtenant with regard to Woods Road; however, they disagree regarding the extent of this easement. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement assert that the reference to Woods Road is a latent ambiguity requiring the introduction of parol evidence to ascertain the parties' intentions.⁵ Mr. Chance responds that the consideration of parol evidence is inappropriate because the reservation of the Woods Road right of way is not ambiguous and that it applies to the entire road as it existed when Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Clement purchased the 76-acre tract from the Peeks. We have determined that Mr. Chance has the better argument.

A.

The rules governing the interpretation of deeds are well-settled and are designed to enable the courts to ascertain the intention of the parties to the deed. Collins v. Smithson, 585 S.W.2d 598, 603 (Tenn.1979); Barber v. Westmoreland, 601 S.W.2d 712, 714 (Tenn.Ct.App.1980). The courts should first seek the parties' intention by examining the words in the deed, Hutchison v. Board, 194 Tenn. 223, 227-28, 250 S.W.2d 82, 84 (1952), and by considering these words in the context of the deed as a whole. Collins v. Smithson, 585 S.W.2d at 603; Barber v. Westmoreland, 601 S.W.2d at 714; Quarles v. Arthur, 33 Tenn.App. 291, 295, 231 S.W.2d 589, 590 (1950).

The courts customarily decline to consider parol evidence that adds to, varies, or otherwise contradicts the language of the deed. Stickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d 127, 132 (Tenn.1992). However, parol evidence may be admissible to remove a latent ambiguity in the deed. Stickley v. Carmichael, 850 S.W.2d at 132; Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d 481, 482 (Tenn.Ct.App.1996). A latent ambiguity is found where:

the equivocality of expression, or obscurity of intention, does not arise from the words themselves, but from the ambiguous state of extrinsic circumstances to which the words of the instrument refer, and which is susceptible of explanation by the mere development of extraneous facts, without altering or adding to the written language, or requiring more to be understood thereby than will fairly comport with the ordinary or legal sense of the words and phrases made use of.

Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. 272, 295 (1848); Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d at 482.

On the other hand, parol evidence is inadmissible to explain a patent ambiguity contained within the deed. Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d at 482. A patent ambiguity is defined as:

one produced by the uncertainty, contradictoriness, or deficiency of the language of an instrument, so that no discovery of facts, or proof of declarations, can restore the doubtful or smothered sense without adding ideas which the actual words will not themselves sustain.

Weatherhead v. Sewell, 28 Tenn. at 295; Estate of Burchfiel v. First United Methodist Church, 933 S.W.2d at 482. In other words, a patent ambiguity is one which appears on the face of the deed, while a latent ambiguity is one which is not discoverable from a perusal of the deed but which appears upon consideration of the extrinsic circumstances.

The interpretation of a deed is a matter of law. Rodgers v. Burnett, 108 Tenn. 173, 184, 65 S.W. 408, 411 (1901); City of Memphis v. Wait, 102 Tenn. 274, 277, 52 S.W. 161, 162 (Tenn.1899); Brown v. Brown, ...