Mobley v. Saponi Corporation

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before I'ANSON; COCHRAN
• Citation: Mobley v. Saponi Corporation, 212 S.E.2d 287, 215 Va. 643 (1975)
• Decision Date: 10 March 1975
• Parties: John E. MOBLEY and Christine O. Mobley v. SAPONI CORPORATION.

Page 287

212 S.E.2d 287

215 Va. 643

John E. MOBLEY and Christine O. Mobley v. SAPONI CORPORATION.

Supreme Court of Virginia.

March 10, 1975.

Stephen H. Helvin, Charlottesville (Haugh & Helvin, Charlottesville, on brief), for appellants.

Jack N. Kegley, Charlottesville, for appellee.

Before I'ANSON, C.J., and CARRICO, HARRISON, COCHRAN, HARMAN, POFF and COMPTON, JJ.

COCHRAN, Justice.

In 1970 John E. Mobley and Christine O. Mobley, his wife, acquired from Saponi Corporation a lot in Lake Saponi Subdivision in Greene County. The lot adjoins Lake Saponi, an artificial lake constructed by the Corporation. On August 23, 1973, the Mobleys filed a bill for injunction against the Corporation alleging that in August, 1972, the overflow pipe, regulating the level of the lake, collapsed and was replaced by a new and taller pipe, which caused the level of the lake to be raised and a portion of the Mobleys' lot to be inundated. The Mobleys asked that the Corporation be ordered to restore the water level to that existing before replacement of the overflow pipe and to pay them damages. After hearing the evidence Ore tenus the chancellor, on February 7, 1974, entered a final decree denying relief to the Mobleys, and the Mobleys have appealed.

The evidence shows that Lake Saponi was dry when the Mobleys purchased their lot, and that the common boundary line of the Mobley lot and the lake, as shown on the subdivision plat, was a straight line without any shore line indentations. Mobley testified that when the lake was subsequently filed, water stood 4 inches and 2 1/4 inches deep, respectively, at the northeast and southeast corners of his lot. He further testified that he measured again at the same corners in 1973, after the overflow pipe had been replaced and the lake refilled, and found that the water had risen to depths of 17 1/2 inches and 15 3/4 inches, respectively.

J. F. Bishop, president and sole owner of the Corporation, testified that he experienced difficulty with the original overflow pipe prior to June, 1972; that he lowered the lake but was unable to repair the pipe; and that later a flood washed out part of the dam, and the lake had to be drained. At a cost in excess of $3,000, Bishop installed a new pipe, despite his belief that he had no legal obligation to do so. He testified that he tried to construct the pipe to the same height as the original and that, after refilling the lake, the water level was within two or three inches of its original level. Other witnesses testified that the lake had been raised no more than four or five inches.

Bishop also testified that lowering the lake to its original level would be detrimental to the interests of all the property owners because it would expose 'mud flats' between the heigher and lower water levels. Another landowner testified that in his opinion the value of lake front properties would decrease if the lake level were lowered and that the usefulness of the lake for recreational purposes 'would be restricted.'

The chancellor ruled that the Mobleys had waived any objection to the original inundation of their land when the lake was first filled. He made no determination 'as to how high the waters of the lake were raised above the first level by the second inundation, but (did) find that the waters at the lake were thus raised onto the (Mobleys') property,' but that the amount of the raising was 'almost a De minimis situation.' He found that the Corporation had intended no injury to the Mobleys and had not benefited from raising the level of the lake, and that lowering the waters 'would hinder the rights of the other lot owners on the lake who make no objection to the water at a higher level.' For these reasons the chancellor denied injunctive relief but ruled that the Mobleys were entitled to recover the actual damage to their property. The evidence as to damages consisted solely of Mobley's testimony that the only damage was to some 'native bushes' of little value. Indeed, Mobley could assign no monetary value to these bushes. Based on this evidence, the chancellor awarded no damages.

The Mobleys contend that the inundation of their property constitutes a continuing trespass,...