Smith v. Woodard
| Decision Date | 18 April 2000 |
| Citation | 15 S.W.3d 768 |
| Parties | (Mo.App. S.D. 2000) Richard Smith and Beverly Smith, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. Steve Woodard, Defendant/Respondent. 23081 0 |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Appeal From: Circuit Court of Jasper County, Hon. Jon Dermott
Counsel for Appellant: L. Thomas Elliston
Counsel for Respondent: John J. Podleski
Opinion Summary: None
This appeal stems from a judgment entered in a collateral action to enforce a judgment. In the original lawsuit, Steve Woodard (hereinafter "Woodard") filed an action against Richard and Beverly Smith (hereinafter "Smiths") seeking a roadway easement across their property. On the eve of trial of that suit, Case No. CV293-001CC, the parties agreed upon a settlement and a record of the agreement was made before the trial court the following day, October 4, 1995. In that agreement, the Smiths granted a 16-foot-wide easement to Woodard for use as a roadway.
In early 1996, Woodard filed a motion to enforce the settlement agreement, a hearing was conducted, and judgment entered on May 28, 1996, directing the parties to comply with the settlement agreement. In that judgment, the court found that the Smiths agreed to grant Woodard "an easement 16 feet in width, essentially running parallel to the fence line between the Smith and Walker property, running in a generally straight line due West to [Woodard's] property, on which [Woodard] could construct a roadway."
Thereafter, Woodard started construction of the roadway. In April of 1997, the Smiths observed that the road being constructed exceeded sixteen feet in width. Smiths' attorney advised Woodard that he not continue with the road construction until he had spoken to his attorney. Woodard stopped the construction at that time. Woodard's attorney then advised, by letter dated April 25, 1997, that it was an "erroneous assumption that the sixteen foot easement was only allowing a total of sixteen feet within which to work and build the roadway" and that a civil engineer advised "that construction work should be allowed to have a sixteen feet wide driving area." The Smiths' attorney responded by letter warning that a temporary restraining order would be sought if construction continued.
On May 27, 1998, the Smiths filed a two-count petition, Case No. CV198-782CC, to enforce the judgment entered in Case No. CV293-001CC, and sought compensation for damage done to the real estate. The petition alleged that Woodard exceeded the width of the 16-foot easement; had not constructed the road in a straight line and had curved the roadway off the easement; had made a major cut in the hill wider than the 16-foot-wide easement and deeper than mere "shaving;" had caused a major fill to be done in the westernmost valley; not kept the road "as low as possible;" and had not restored or corrected damage to Smiths' real estate done outside the 16-foot easement. The Smiths alleged that Woodard failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the settlement agreement and the judgment entered in Case No. CV293-001CC. The petition also requested attorneys' fees incurred in obtaining enforcement of the judgment.
A hearing was held on the petition filed by the Smiths, and judgment entered on May 25, 1999. The judgment contained sixteen numbered paragraphs of "Findings of Fact," and seventeen "Conclusions of Law." The specific findings and conclusions will be discussed below where relevant. Essentially, the judgment found that Woodard had a 16-foot easement but was entitled to "alter and contour the land outside the easement to the extent necessary," and denied Smiths any award of damages and attorneys' fees.
Review of this action is set forth in Rule 84.13(d). In reviewing the judgment of a court-tried case, this court views the evidence and permissible inferences drawn therefrom in a light most favorable to the judgment. The judgment will be affirmed unless it is against the weight of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to support it, or it erroneously declares or applies the law. Hoelscher v. Simmerock, 921 S.W.2d 676, 677 (Mo.App. 1996).1
An appellate court should exercise the power to set aside a judgment on the ground that it is against the weight of the evidence with caution and a firm belief that it was wrong. Rhodes v. Blair, 919 S.W.2d 561, 564 (Mo.App. 1996). Point I
Appellants allege the trial court erred in finding that Respondent "is entitled to alter and contour the land outside the 16 foot easement to the extent reasonably necessary to support a viable and useable roadway of 10 feet in width" because (A) an admission of Woodard established that the easement was 16-feet wide; and (B) it was the intent of the parties to grant and accept a 16-foot easement in that the parties entered into a settlement agreement and judgment that gave Woodard an easement sixteen feet in width. We agree with Appellants and find that the trial court erroneously construed the law in its application of the easement granted to Woodard.
Matters admitted pursuant to Rule 59.01 are conclusively established unless the court permits withdrawal or amendment of the admissions. Rule 59.01(c). Rhodes, 919 S.W.2d at 564. Such admissions eliminate the need for further proof of those matters. Id. Woodard's admission that the easement was for an easement sixteen feet in width conclusively established that fact. On July 13, 1998, Smith filed a certificate of service of a Request for Admissions upon Woodard's attorney, in accordance with Rule 59.01. The first numbered paragraph asked Woodard to admit the following:
1. That the settlement and judgment in the case of Woodard v. Smith et ux, Case
No. CV293-001CC, in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri grants the Defendant
only an easement sixteen foot in width.
On October 2, 1998, Defendant Woodard filed his response to the request for admissions. His first response was as follows:
1. Defendant admits the judgment in the case of Woodard v. Smith, Case
No. CV293-001CC, in the Circuit Court of Jasper County, Missouri granted the
Defendant an easement 16 foot in width.2
The trial court's finding is also in error because the Settlement Agreement entered on October 4, 1995, in Case No. CV293-001CC, granted a 16 foot wide easement across Smiths' land for Woodard's use. Woodard and Smith testified in court and a record was made concerning the substance of the agreement as follows:
Direct Examination by Mr. Podleski:
. . .
PODLESKI: And the Smiths have agreed that they will allow you a 16 foot wide
easement -- or 16 feet wide easement over here next to the fence line between the Smiths
and the Walkers, and it will go basically at a straight line due west to your -- to where
your property and the Bulger property meet, correct?
will match up with the boundary line between the Woodard property and the Bulger
property, correct?
"An oral stipulation should be as binding as a written contract when the oral agreement is entered into in open court by parties represented by able counsel and the agreement is spread upon the record." Frederick v. Heim, 943 S.W.2d 343, 347 (Mo.App. 1997). The agreement read into the record that Smiths agreed to grant Woodard an easement 16 feet in width is binding upon both parties.
Woodard argues that the terms of the agreement are ambiguous and that the court was therefore permitted to interpret the ambiguous language, and to give a construction to the agreement that will reflect the real intention of the parties. We disagree; "16 feet in width" is not ambiguous. Woodard now argues that it was his intention to be allowed a reasonable roadway width, and that he requires at least ten feet of road surface. This discrepancy is only raised after Woodard attempted to construct the roadway and failed to remain within the sixteen feet of width granted him.
Woodard claims that testimony given at the time settlement agreement was read into the record that some "shaving done of that hill to make it -- make the roadway a little more accessible and also to help with the drainage problem" would be necessary. Woodard asserts that this testimony shows that the intent of the parties was not to limit construction to the 16-foot easement. This testimony only refers to one hill and does not support Woodard's assertion.
Point I is granted. The trial court erroneously applied the law when it granted Woodard more use of the land than the easement agreed to by the parties. An easement entitles its owner to a limited use or enjoyment of the land of another. Hoelscher, 921 S.W.2d at 679. Woodard agreed to an easement sixteen feet in width, and was granted permission by the Smiths to get off the sixteen feet only during construction to maneuver equipment.
Although the terms of the settlement agreement may not allow Woodard the road surface he wishes to have, we cannot rewrite agreements for parties. Where the terms of the contract are clear, as we find they are here, we do not supply additional terms, but apply the agreement as written. Brewer v. Devore, 960 S.W.2d 519, 522 (M...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ridgway v. Ttnt Development Corp.
...a party builds a roadway outside of a clearly-defined easement was correctly set forth in the following quotation from Smith v. Woodard, 15 S.W.3d 768 (Mo.App.2000): The measure of damages to real property, where the property can be restored to its former condition, is the difference in its......
-
Jungers v. Webster Elec. Coop., Inc.
...(Mo. App. 2004) ; Leonard Missionary Baptist Church v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. , 42 S.W.3d 833, 836 (Mo. App. 2001) ; Smith v. Woodard , 15 S.W.3d 768, 773 (Mo. App. 2000) ; Jordan v. Stallings , 911 S.W.2d 653, 663 (Mo. App. 1995) ; Kueffer v. Brown , 879 S.W.2d 658, 666 (Mo. App. 1994) ; Plu......
-
Blackburn v. Habitat Development Co.
...584 (Mo.App. 1997). Accordingly, review of this action is as set forth in Rule 84.13(d), Missouri Court Rules (2001). Smith v. Woodard, 15 S.W.3d 768, 771 (Mo.App. 2000). The judgment will be affirmed unless it is against the weight of the evidence, there is insufficient evidence to support......
-
Berlin v. Pickett
...reasonableness of his services. Accordingly, this court cannot provide meaningful review, and a remand is necessary. Smith v. Woodard, 15 S.W.3d 768, 774 (Mo.App. 2000). It should be noted, however, that even if a request for findings of fact under Rule 73.01 is made, a trial court need not......
-
Exceeding the Scope of an Easement: "Expanded Use" Within a Single Cable.
...nothing in [the easement] that allows the owner of a fee to change a walkway into a vehicular roadway."). (106.) See Smith v. Woodard, 15 S.W.3d 768, 773 (Mo. Ct. App. 2000) ("[W]ith trespass no actual damages must be proven; the claimant is entitled to at least nominal (107.) Adam v. Chi.,......