Phillips v. Woods, No. E2007-00697-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. App. 3/31/2008)
| Decision Date | 31 March 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. E2007-00697-COA-R3-CV.,E2007-00697-COA-R3-CV. |
| Parties | CONNIE R. (DAVIS) PHILLIPS, ET AL., v. LAWRENCE WOODS, ET AL. |
| Court | Tennessee Court of Appeals |
Appeal from the Chancery Court for Morgan County; No. 05-56; Frank V. Williams, III, Chancellor.
Judgment of the Chancery Court Affirmed; Case Remanded for Further Proceedings.
Wade M. Boswell, Knoxville, Tennessee, for the appellants, Lawrence Woods and Charlotte Woods.
Philip R. Crye, Jr., Clinton, Tennessee, for the appellees, Connie R. (Davis) Phillips and Carol J. (Davis) Miller.
OPINION
This appeal involves a dispute over a boundary line and the ownership of a driveway.1 The plaintiffs, Connie R. (Davis) Phillips and Carol J. (Davis) Miller ("the plaintiffs" or "the Davis heirs"), and the defendants, Lawrence Woods and Charlotte Woods ("the defendants" or "the Woods"), own adjacent tracts of real property in Morgan County. When the initial complaint was filed, the northern tract of property was owned by the plaintiffs' mother, Stella Davis ("Mrs. Davis"), who had filed suit against the Woods, the owners of the southern tract, to quiet title, to establish the common boundary line, and for libel of title. After Mrs. Davis' death prior to trial, her daughters were substituted as plaintiffs. Upon the conclusion of a bench trial, the trial court found, inter alia, that the Davis heirs owned the property over which the driveway ran, but that the defendants retained an easement by necessity in the roadway, and that the Woods had committed libel of title. While the trial court agreed with the common boundary line described by the surveyor for the Davis heirs, the court reformed the boundary between the parties upon finding that the defendants were entitled to a portion of the Davis property as a result of adversely possessing it for over 30 years. The Woods appeal. We affirm. Case remanded for further proceedings.
This dispute arose in April 2004, when Mrs. Davis gave permission to a neighbor, Jeremy Chadwick, owner of property to the east of her property and that of the Woods, to use the gravel driveway at issue for a means of ingress and egress to a new home he was constructing on his property. When the defendants learned that Mrs. Davis had authorized Mr. Chadwick to use the driveway, Mr. Woods became upset and consulted an attorney. The defendants' counsel subsequently sent a letter to Mr. Chadwick to advise him that he had no right to use the driveway. Mr. Woods also set up a meeting with Mrs. Davis and her sister, Lucy Sweat, to discuss the driveway. At some point, Mr. Woods offered Mrs. Davis $2,000 in return for a deed to the 15-foot wide strip of her property where the driveway is located. According to the testimony of Ms. Sweat, Mr. Woods made it clear that once Mrs. Davis signed the deed, he planned to exclude everyone from using the driveway, including Mrs. Davis' daughters, unless the defendants were paid for its use. Mrs. Davis declined to sell the driveway.
Around this same time, Mr. Woods obtained the services of a registered land surveyor, L. Eugene Olmstead, who completed a survey of the driveway on August 4, 2004. A general warranty deed was prepared utilizing the survey, wherein the Woods declared that they were the owners in fee simple of the driveway. The deed, from Lawrence Woods to Lawrence Woods and wife, Charlotte Woods, indicated that the driveway had been "exclusively, actually, adversely, continuously, openly and notoriously possessed by the parties hereto and their predecessors in interest for a period of time in excess of sixty (60) years." The deed was executed and recorded on August 31, 2004. Mr. Woods claimed that he undertook all these actions upon the advice of counsel.
Mrs. Davis had her property surveyed on November 8, 2004, by registered land surveyor Wade B. Nance. On May 6, 2005, Mrs. Davis filed a complaint for declaratory judgment to quiet title, to establish a boundary line, and for damages for libel of title. In her complaint, Mrs. Davis averred that the Woods, by recording the deed, had published false statements of ownership of the driveway, which they intended to constitute notice to the whole world, thereby committing libel of title. She further alleged that the Woods had encroached across her southern boundary line and had placed on the northern part of her property a water meter, a mailbox, and a "private property" sign. In her prayer for relief, Mrs. Davis requested that the trial court "declare that Defendants have a nonexclusive implied easement of necessity across the driveway for ingress and egress between Angel Lane and Defendants' property and further declare the relative rights of the parties with respect to the driveway."
The Woods, in their answer, stressed that the roadway to their land had been in existence for over 50 years and predated the 1955 deed to Mrs. Davis and her late husband, James Davis (collectively "the Davis"). The defendants contended that the roadway had been in the complete control of the Woods family since the 1940s and that they believed the actions of Noah Woods, their predecessor in title, along with their acts, had resulted in their ownership of the driveway. Over the years, Mr. Woods had put a base on the road, graveled it, put power lines over it, and placed water and gas lines under it. At one time, Mr. Woods put up a gate, chained off the driveway to prevent other people from using it, and even had his attorney write third parties to advise them they could not utilize his driveway. Thus, the defendants argued that the deed only reflected what Mr. Woods and family members had believed was the truth. They denied that their use of the driveway was based upon the permission of the Davis or their predecessors in title.
On appeal, Mr. Woods asserts that he was not acting in reckless disregard of Mrs. Davis' rights because he genuinely thought that he owned the driveway or was entitled to it by adverse possession. The Woods indicate that counsel advised them to avoid a proceeding such as this by trying to obtain Mrs. Davis' signature on a document which would indicate the driveway belonged to the defendants. Mr. Woods claims the fact that he offered Mrs. Davis $2,000 to acknowledge that the driveway was his "had nothing to do with whether or not he thought he owned it but simply showed the pragmatic effect of trying to minimize the out-of-pocket expenditures that might be incurred in the future." According to Mr. Woods, the fact that the deed was recorded was not a blatant attempt to take what he had not been able to obtain by his cash offer, but was a means of attempting to establish what he thought he already had, i.e., ownership of the driveway. Mr. Woods relies on the fact that the deed shows on its face that it was not prepared by Mr. Woods but by his attorney. He claims this bolsters his position that he was acting upon the advice of counsel.
The properties at issue came from a common owner, Haze Langley, who acquired title to the original 24-acre tract by a warranty deed dated October 8, 1917, from his mother, Mahala Justice. By a deed dated August 11, 1941, and recorded on January 21, 1946, Mr. Langley conveyed about 2 acres of his property to Grover Portwood. This deed to Mr. Portwood, which did not reserve an easement across the property for ingress and egress, was the first conveyance out of the initial tract and severed the remaining balance of Mr. Langley's property from its access to the county road. The property comprising Tract I of the Davis property is described in this deed.
In a deed dated December 24, 1945, and recorded on January 21, 1946, Mr. Langley next conveyed an approximately four-acre tract to Inman McPeters. Again, Mr. Langley did not reserve an easement across the property to and from the county road. The McPeters deed describes the same property comprising Tract 2 of the Davis property. Ultimately, the two tracts referenced above were purchased in August 1955 by Mr. and Mrs. Davis, and later became solely vested in Mrs. Davis by a warranty deed dated and recorded on September 11, 1965. Title to these tracts passed by intestate succession to Mrs. Davis' daughters on July 20, 2005, upon the death of Mrs. Davis.
By deed dated March 1, 1947, and recorded on May 17, 1947, Mr. Langley conveyed another eight acres to Mr. Portwood, who conveyed the tract one year later to Noah Woods, the predecessor in title to the defendants. The means of ingress and egress to the properties severed from the original 24-acre tract and lacking access to the county road was over a rutted dirt lane. The properties were used to grow crops. The location and width of the driveway has not changed over the years.
In July 1970, Noah Woods conveyed a half-acre tract to his son and daughter-in-law, the Woods. According to the defendants, because the surveyor, Gordon Wilson, was unable to locate a monument on the east side that differentiated the common boundary between the Davis' property and the Woods' property, the survey was started at the poplar tree on the west side and brought back across in an easterly direction, resulting in the placement of the eastern corner about where the culvert is now. The Woods claim that because a heated conflict ensued between Mr. Davis and the surveyor as to the common boundary line, Noah Woods instructed Mr. Wilson to just step back down into the open field and mark off a half acre. In 1973, the Woods built their home on the half-acre tract they had received. A water line was installed beneath the driveway and an electric power line was placed alongside the western edge of the road. A buried gas line running under the power poles is reflected on Mr. Olmstead's survey. For over 30 years, the driveway at issue has been maintained and...
To continue reading
Request your trial