Webb v. Mitchell

• Decision Date: 29 March 2013
• Docket Number: 2111046.
• Citation: 124 So.3d 139
• Parties: James Kevin WEBB and Nancy Carol Reid Webb v. Freddie Leon MITCHELL, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al. Freddie Leon Mitchell, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al. v. James Kevin Webb and Nancy Carol Reid Webb.
• Court: Alabama Court of Civil Appeals

124 So.3d 139

James Kevin WEBB and Nancy Carol Reid Webb

v.Freddie Leon MITCHELL, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al.

Freddie Leon Mitchell, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al.

v.James Kevin Webb and Nancy Carol Reid Webb.

2111046.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

March 29, 2013.

John F. Porter III, Scottsboro, for appellants/cross-appellees James Kevin Webb and Nancy Carol Reid Webb.

Gary W. Lackey of The Lackey Law Firm, Scottsboro, for appellees/cross-appellants Freddie Leon Mitchell, as executor of the estate of Daisy Irene Mitchell, et al.

DONALDSON, Judge.

This appeal and cross-appeal follow a judicial determination of a boundary line between coterminous adjoining properties. Because the judgment from which the appeal and cross-appeal were taken did not adjudicate the claims or interests of all parties nor adjudicate all of the claims for relief contained in the complaint, the judgment is not final and the appeal and the cross-appeal must be dismissed.

Facts

Daisy Irene Mitchell,¹ Leon Mitchell, Shirley M. Smith, and Kay M. Rayburn (hereinafter referred to collectively as “the Mitchells”) own certain land in Jackson County that adjoins land owned by James Kevin Webb and Nancy Carol Reid Webb (“the Webbs”). The Mitchells filed a complaint seeking a judgment determining the ownership rights to a certain strip of property (“the disputed property”) and declaring the location of the correct boundary line between their properties. The Mitchells also sought temporary injunctive relief, permanent injunctive relief, and damages for trespass. The trial court granted temporary injunctive relief restraining the Webbs from certain acts relating to the disputed property. The Webbs answered the complaint asserting ownership to the disputed property and denying that the boundary line was located where the Mitchells claimed. The Webbs sought a determination that the boundary line was in a different location. Following a pretrial conference in March 2008, the trial court entered the following order:

“Based upon the assertions of [the Mitchells] that the disputed strip of property was used in the past by adjoining land owners for access, namely Addie Wilhelm, Rupert Shelton and Mildred Moore, this matter is continued to allow [the Mitchells] 30 days to amend their pleadings to add said persons as parties to prevent multiplicity of litigation.”

The Mitchells amended the complaint on May 8, 2008, to add Addie Wilhelm, Rupert Shelton, and Mildred Moore as defendants (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the added defendants”). The Mitchells asserted that the added defendants each owned property adjoining either the Mitchells' property or the Webbs' property and accessed that property by using an old road bed located within the disputed property. The Mitchells asserted that any ruling by the court on the boundary line between their property and the Webbs' property would affect the added defendants' ability to access their own property. In their claim for relief, the Mitchells sought an order “adjudicating the respective rights of the various parties” as to the disputed property. The amended complaint further incorporated all of the claims and allegations contained in the original complaint.

On May 15, 2008, the Webbs responded to the amended complaint by generally denying the allegations in the complaint and reasserting their position as to ownership of the disputed property and the correct location of the boundary line. The Webbs also stated:

“The Court's establishment of the boundary line between the property of the [Mitchells] and the property of [the Webbs] does not impede or impair the property rights of the Defendants Addie Wilhelm, Rupert Shelton or Mildred Moore. If these [added] Defendants are landlocked, then they are entitled to an easement by necessity or by implication over the property of the [Mitchells] but are not entitled to an easement or right of way over and along the property of [the Webbs]. Any roadway that was formerly used by any of the added Defendants has been abandoned by non-use for more than twenty years.”

The Webbs further asked the court to establish the boundary line between the Webbs' property and Mitchells' property in a manner “which by necessity would also establish the property line between [the Webbs] and the [added] Defendant, Mildred Moore.”

On June 4, 2008, Mildred Moore ² filed an answer to the amended complaint without counsel and stated:

“1. Yes, I Mildred Moore do own property behind the Plaintiff, Irene Mitchell. Over the years our right of way to our land had been through the Disputed Area. Which we have always thought was on the Plaintiff's land.

“2. Yes we have been using the old road bed as access to our land. During the last 15 years my Grandson and Great Grandson have walked this road bed as a path to my land to deer hunt and turkey hunt.

“3. I hope that we can continue to use the old road bed as access to our property as in the past.”

On June 8, 2010, Addie Wilhelm, one of the added defendants, filed an answer without counsel.³ She admitted owning land adjacent to the Mitchells' property, but denied knowing anything about the location of the boundary line between the Mitchells' property and the Webbs' property.

On June 12, 2008, Rupert Shelton, one of the added defendants, filed an answer without counsel stating that the disputed property was not “well-defined” but denying that he had any ownership interest in the disputed property as depicted by a drawing attached to the amended complaint. He also stated:

“3. Should Defendant SHELTON's access to his property be found to cross the disputed property, SHELTON hereby claims and reserves his continued right to access his property via the disputed property.

“4. Defendant SHELTON has accessed his property via disputed road bed within last twenty (20) years.”

The Webbs filed a “Response to Answer of Rupert Shelton to Amended Complaint.” The response was conditional in several respects, claiming in part that Shelton's access to their land had been permissive and limited and that they intended to continue to allow this type of access. Further, the Webbs suggested that the claims of Shelton may be more closely aligned with claims of Daisy Irene Mitchell, a plaintiff in the action.

In their brief on appeal, the Mitchells included an illustration that displays the property owned by each party.⁴ The Mitchells state:

“This case centers on that portion of the [Webbs' and Mitchells'] coterminous boundary between the 90° westward turn of County 168 shown in the Illustration, and the northern boundary of the three parcels of the ‘Added Defendants' also shown in the Illustration.”

Regarding the claims of the added defendants, the Mitchells state as follows:

“The Amended Complaint in this action, joining these three Defendants ... sought adjudication of the rights of those Defendants—Addie Wilhelm, Rupert Shelton, and Mildred Moore—to access their properties along the ‘wagon trail’ labeled on the Illustration. For various reasons, including the deaths of Wilhelm and Moore and uncertainty over the status of their estates, the Circuit Court chose not to determine that claim at the hearing on April 4, 2011.”

A trial was conducted on September 20, 2010, and April 4, 2011. When the proceeding began on September 20, the following occurred:

“THE COURT: ... And I'm ready if y'all are, gentlemen.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE WEBBS]: Judge, I believe all the plaintiffs are actual parties, and I want to make sure of that. With the changes and additions, I believe that is correct.

“THE COURT: Why don't we address that. There was some issue about somebody having died.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]: Well, yeah. Judge, if I could address that, and I'm referring to the tax map, which shows three 16–acre strips— “THE COURT: Yes, sir.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]:—that adjoined both these plaintiffs and these defendants, and the dispute has to do with a continuation of this road that I'm pointing to—

“THE COURT: Yes, sir.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]:—that comes up the mountain here and has traditionally been used as an access by those three 16–acre landowners. They were added as parties some time ago, and since they've been added, two of them have passed away, Addie Wilhelm, who passed away months ago, if not over a year ago, and then Mrs. Curtis Moore, who I didn't know until this morning had passed away much more recently. The other one—the other 16–acre strip landowner is Rupert Shelton. And they have filed a pro se answer, but they're not here either. So basically the situation as it exists this morning is that we have two landowners who are parties to the case who have passed away, and I don't know the condition of their estate, whether there has been a probate or anything like that.

“THE COURT: Those are landowners of the 16–acre strips; is that correct?

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]: Correct, your Honor.

“THE COURT: Is that your understanding, [counsel for the Webbs]?

“[COUNSEL FOR THE WEBBS]: It is my understanding.

“THE COURT: Are those folks necessary parties to the case? It looked to me like the dispute was up there on the curve.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]: Well, see, the problem is that—

“THE COURT: If there is no access, it leaves them landlocked.

“[COUNSEL FOR THE MITCHELLS]: Our contention is that the old roadbed, which constitutes essentially the disputed area, was a continuation of this county road that went on up the mountain and had traditionally been used by these parties for access to their land. And so I added them for two reasons: Number one, they had a lot of knowledge about the use of the disputed strip down through the years; number two, to prevent a future claim against the plaintiffs for private condemnation of the right-of-way in the event that we prevail or in the event that the Webbs prevail. Either party that prevails may in the future want to cut them off, and if they'r...