Randolph County Commission v. Landrum

• Decision Date: 18 June 2021
• Docket Number: 2190961,2190971
• Parties: RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION v. Jeffery K. LANDRUM Jim Barber et al. v. Jeffery K. Landrum
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

342 So.3d 574

RANDOLPH COUNTY COMMISSION

v.Jeffery K. LANDRUM

Jim Barber et al.

v.Jeffery K. Landrum

2190961

2190971

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 18, 2021

Craig S. Dillard of Webb McNeill Walker PC, Montgomery, for appellant Randolph County Commission.

John A. Tinney, Roanoke, for appellants Jim Barber, Jimmy Goss, Tommy Owens, Kevin Hyatt, Tallapoosa Timberlands, LLC, Tallapoosa River Hunting Club, and Resource Management Service, LLC.

Kesa M. Johnston, Roanoke, for appellee.

EDWARDS, Judge.

In appeal number 2190961, the Randolph County Commission ("the Commission") appeals from a judgment entered by the Randolph Circuit Court ("the trial court") in favor of Jeffery K. Landrum on his claim for the common-law dedication of a road, i.e., seeking a judgment declaring that a certain unimproved road is a public, county road. In appeal number 2190971, Jim Barber; Jimmy Goss; Tommy Owens; Kevin Hyatt; Tallapoosa Timberlands, LLC; Tallapoosa River Hunting Club ("the hunting club"); and Resource Management Service, LLC, appeal from that same judgment.¹ We reverse and remand.

In 2016, Landrum purchased 34 acres of real property near the Tallapoosa River end of an unimproved road ("Road 968") that purportedly begins at Randolph County Road 5 and terminates at some point near the Tallapoosa River in southwest Randolph County. Landrum's property does not abut the end of Road 968, but use of that road is apparently necessary to access his property. On July 12, 2017, Landrum filed a complaint in the trial court against Barber, Owens, and Hyatt, who he alleged were members of the hunting club, which purportedly leased or owned part of the land on which Road 968 is located. Landrum sought a declaration that Road 968 is a public, county road and an injunction requiring the removal of a gate that had been placed across the road at its intersection with County Road 5, allegedly after he had purchased his property.

On September 5, 2017, Barber filed a motion requesting that the trial court dismiss the complaint or, in the alternative, require Landrum to add certain persons as parties to his action. See Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P. Barber alleged that he and Goss own part of the land on either side of Road 968 and that they lease their land to the hunting club. Thus, he contended, Goss and the members of the hunting club must be added as parties to Landrum's action.² Barber further alleged, however, that most of the land on which Road 968 is located is owned by "the Twilley family" and is, in turn, leased by Tallapoosa Timberlands, which has retained Resource Management to conduct timber-harvesting operations on the property and to manage that property. Barber also alleged that Tallapoosa Timberlands has a lease with the hunting club regarding the property Tallapoosa Timberlands leases from "the Twilley family." He contended that those "persons, firms or corporations" and the Commission should also be added as parties to Landrum's action.

On September 12, 2017, Goss, Tallapoosa Timberlands, the hunting club, Resource Management, and "the Twilley Family" filed a motion to intervene in Landrum's action, see Rule 24(a), Ala. R. Civ. P., and included a counterclaim requesting that the trial court "enter an order declaring that [Road 968] is a private roadway owned by the Twilley Family," which in turn had entered into leases relating to their property and Road 968. Specifically, the counterclaim alleged that

"the Twilley Family is represented by Don Rush,³ a Twilley heir, who appears on behalf of all Twilley family heirs. Mr. Rush and the Twilley Family contend that the roadway running through the Twilley lands at issue in this case is not a public roadway, has never been a public roadway and is a roadway created by the original Twilley landowner (C.C. Twilley) for access to his property. Mr. C.C. Twilley constructed the roadway in question to access his property on which timber has been harvested and removed for decades. The Twilley Family claims the road has never been opened to the public and if anyone has been using any of the roadway it would have been without the permission of the Twilley Family who owned the property on all sides of the roadway in question. Mr. C.C. Twilley also used the road to access his farm land and cattle operation."

The trial court entered an order granting the motion to intervene and allowing the filing of the counterclaim.

On May 4, 2018, Landrum filed an amended complaint against Barber, Goss, Owens, Hyatt, Tallapoosa Timberlands, the hunting club, "the Twilley Heirs," and Resource Management (referred to collectively as "the private-party defendants") and the Commission. Landrum's amended complaint made no reference to "the Twilley Family." Landrum alleged that "the Twilley Heirs" owned property along Road 968, that they had leased the property to Tallapoosa Timberlands, and that, in turn, Tallapoosa Timberlands had leased the property to the hunting club. He also alleged that those heirs were "represented by heir Don Rush." Landrum alleged that Resource Management was "responsible for the harvesting of timber on the lands owned by" "the Twilley Heirs." The amended complaint sought an order declaring Road 968 to be a public, county road.⁴

The Commission and most of the private-party defendants,⁵ including the "Heirs of C.C. Twilley," filed answers to the amended complaint denying the allegations thereof, including the allegation that Don Rush represented those heirs, and asserting various affirmative defenses to Landrum's claims.

The trial court held ore tenus proceedings in September 2019, and, on April 7, 2020, it entered an order declaring that Road 968 is a public, county road and enjoining the Commission and the private-party defendants "from obstructing County Road 968 by maintaining a gate across said road, or otherwise hindering public travel on said road or the maintenance thereof, in any manner whatsoever, at any point from County Road 5 to the Tallapoosa River." Although a factual dispute was presented at trial regarding the exact location of Road 968 (different roads or portions of roads were discussed in relation to various maps), the April 2020 order failed to determine that issue. See Rule 54, Ala. R. Civ. P ; see also, e.g., Littleton v. Wells, 280 So. 3d 1080, 1086 (Ala. Civ. App. 2019) (discussing the requirement that a judgment actually establish the disputed boundary, even if a subsequent survey may be necessary, in order to be a final judgment).

On May 7, 2020, the Commission filed a purported postjudgment motion, and, on May 18, 2020, the private-party defendants filed a purported postjudgment motion. In addition to arguing that the trial court had erred regarding its determination that Road 968 is a public, county road, both purported postjudgment motions also argued that the trial court needed to address the location of Road 968 based on the evidence presented at trial. Landrum filed a response opposing the purported postjudgment motions; however, he made no reference regarding whether the April 2020 order had adjudicated the issue of the location of Road 968.

On June 29, 2020, the trial court held a hearing on the purported postjudgment motions, and, on August 11, 2020, it entered an order denying those motions.⁶ The trial court stated, in pertinent part,

"that the road in question was subject to common law dedication. The county road 968 sign has been on along the road for many years. The owners never removed the sign or asked for its removal. It was proven by clear and convincing evidence that the owner unequivocally approved the dedication and the county accepted the dedication by placing and replacing the county road 968 signs and a stop sign on said road."

The August 2020 order further stated that,

"[i]n an effort to clarify the intended boundaries of the roadway at issue, County Road 968, the ... April ... 2020 [order], is amended to reflect the intent of the Court that County Road 968 begins at the intersection of County Road 5 and continues to an orange marking as depicted on [Landrum's exhibit] #3 map. The same road is depicted on [the Commission's exhibit] #26A. Said road is depicted in green and highlighted in orange. And also shown on [the private-party] defendant's [exhibit] #1 to a red mark."

We note that the location of the termination point of Road 968 as depicted on Landrum's exhibit #3 and the Commission's exhibit #26A appear to be consistent with one another, but not consistent with the "red mark" on the private-party defendant's exhibit #1. Nevertheless, the August 2020 order purported to resolve the issue that remained pending after the entry of the April 2020 order.⁷

On September 14, 2020, the private-party defendants -- except for "the Twilley Heirs" -- timely filed a notice of appeal to the supreme court. The following day, the Commission timely filed a notice of appeal to the supreme court. The supreme court transferred the appeals to this court, pursuant to Ala. Code 1975, § 12-2-7(6), and we consolidated the appeals ex mero motu.

The private-party defendants, other than the "Twilley Heirs," and the Commission make several arguments challenging the trial court's determination that Road 968 is a public, county road. We pretermit any discussion of those arguments, however, because the April 2020 order, as amended by the August 2020 order, must be reversed and this case remanded for the trial court to comply with Rule 19, Ala. R. Civ. P., and for such further proceedings as might be necessary (1) to make all persons who own an interest in the property formerly owned by C.C. Twilley and on which Road 968 is located parties to Landrum's action, whether those persons are heirs of C.C. Twilley or the successors in interest to any such heir, and (2) to enter a judgment adjudicating the interests of any such parties, along with those of the Commission and the private-party defendants, with the exception of the non-entity referred to as "the Twilley Heirs." See note 8,...