Pinkston v. Hartley
| Decision Date | 02 July 1987 |
| Citation | 511 So.2d 168 |
| Parties | Thomas Barnett PINKSTON, Sr., and Mary Pinkston v. John W. HARTLEY, et al. 85-1481. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Philip H. Butler and David E. Belser, of Robison & Belser, Montgomery, for appellants.
J. Paul Lowery, Montgomery, for appellees.
This is an appeal from a judgment in favor of John W. Hartley, et al. The trial judge found that an implied easement existed for a sewer line and granted injunctive relief ordering appellants to remove an obstruction they had placed in the field lines of appellees' septic tank. We affirm.
This case involves a bitter family dispute. Appellant, Thomas Pinkston, deeded to his daughter and son-in-law, Phillippa and John Hartley, property on which there was situated a house. The field lines from the septic tank on the property deeded to the Hartleys ran onto the Pinkstons' property. Although there was no express easement for the lines, it is undisputed that the lines existed at the time the Hartleys moved onto their new property in the spring of 1983. The Hartleys continued to use the lines until December 1984, when John Hartley informed Thomas Pinkston that the lines needed to be replaced. Pinkston gave his permission for them to be replaced, although he maintains that he told Hartley to put them exactly where the old lines were and not to "get into the cemetery." Hartley contends he was told to place the new lines in the proximity of the old lines and not to interfere with gravesites.
A few months after the new field lines were laid, a family dispute arose over a different matter and the Hartleys moved to another city. In August 1985, Pinkston notified the Hartleys that he was revoking his permission for their field lines to run onto his property. Soon thereafter, Pinkston cut and sealed the lines and the Hartleys filed a complaint asking for injunctive relief.
As Pinkston concedes, the first hurdle to overcome in this case is the ore tenus presumption. We have stated, "In a case tried ore tenus there is a presumption of correctness, and the court's findings will not be disturbed unless they are palpably wrong, without supporting evidence or manifestly unjust." Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892, 894 (Ala.1982). Pinkston contends that because the trial court made rulings on undisputed facts, the ore tenus rule is inapplicable and the Supreme Court sits in judgment on the evidence de novo. He also argues that the trial court was clearly in error in its application of the law to the facts.
We find that the material facts of the case were in dispute. Furthermore, there is no indication of either palpable error in the trial judge's findings of fact or misapplication of the law to the facts.
The questions of fact material to the issues are whether the field lines encroached upon the graves and whether the Hartleys sufficiently complied with requirements concerning the location of the lines. There can be no question that the facts surrounding the issues are in dispute. Pinkston claims that the lines disturbed unmarked graves outside an iron fence that encircled the cemetery. He further argues that the location of unmarked graves could be ascertained by looking for depressions in the ground (although, he says, the depressions are no longer present since the field lines allegedly disturbed the graves). The Hartleys maintain that, to their knowledge, the lines do not go over any graves. Mr. Hartley contends that there were no depressions in the ground where the lines were laid and that there was no indication of graves in that particular area.
Pinkston and the Hartleys also disagree about whether the Hartleys sufficiently complied with Pinkston's restrictions. Pinkston claims that he told Mr. Hartley to place the new field lines in exactly the same place as the old lines. He contends that the old lines extended from the Hartley property line forty (40)...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McWilliams v. American Medical Intern., Inc.
...Contracts § 90(1)). Alabama has applied the doctrine as a consideration substitute for awarding expectation damages. See Pinkston v. Hartley, 511 So.2d 168 (Ala. 1987) (easement by estoppel); Smith v. Norman, 495 So.2d 536 (Ala.1986); Mazer v. Jackson Ins. Agency, 340 So.2d 770, 772 In esta......
-
Patel v. Planning Bd. of North Andover, 88-P-586
...and another party changed his position to his detriment in reasonable reliance on the misleading conduct. See, e.g., Pinkston v. Hartley, 511 So.2d 168, 169-170 (Ala.1987); Hester v. Chambers, 264 Ark. 941, 942-943, 576 S.W.2d 195 (1979); Collins v. Ketter, 719 P.2d 731, 734 (Colo.App.1986)......
-
Hereford v. Gingo-Morgan Park
...wrong, without supporting evidence or manifestly unjust.' Silverman v. Charmac, Inc., 414 So.2d 892, 894 (Ala.1982)." Pinkston v. Hartley, 511 So.2d 168, 169 (Ala.1987). In addition, the ore tenus presumption is further strengthened in a case involving a dispute over real property, where th......
-
Ford v. Jackson Square, Ltd.
...of such rights contrary to equity and good conscience." See, also, Smith v. Norman, 495 So.2d 536 (Ala.1986); and Pinkston v. Hartley, 511 So.2d 168 (Ala.1987). The Court in Mazer went on to further define the elements of equitable and promissory estoppel as "Equitable estoppel is " ' "... ......
-
Estoppel in Property Law
...to use a well, together with shared installation costs and operating expenses, creates an easement by estoppel). Cf. Pinkston v. Hartley, 511 So. 2d 168 (Ala. 1987) (affirming trial court determination that easement by implication existed for sewer lines because lines were reasonably necess......