Weeks v. Wolf Creek Industries, Inc.

Decision Date21 April 2006
Docket Number1041189.,1041264.
Citation941 So.2d 263
PartiesJ.A. WEEKS, Sr., and Bonnie W. Weeks v. WOLF CREEK INDUSTRIES, INC., et al. Wolf Creek Industries, Inc., et al. v. J.A. Weeks, Sr., and Bonnie W. Weeks.
CourtAlabama Supreme Court

Jessica M. McDill of Chason & Chason, P.C., Bay Minette, for appellants/cross-appellees J.A. Weeks, Sr., and Bonnie W. Weeks.

Blane H. Crutchfield and Katie L. Hammett of Hand Arendall, L.L.C., Mobile, for appellees/cross-appellants Wolf Creek Industries, Inc., et al.

WOODALL, Justice.

These appeals arise out of a declaratory-judgment action commenced by J.A. Weeks, Sr., and Bonnie W. Weeks, husband and wife, against The Commons, LLC, Wolf Creek Industries, Inc., Summit Construction Company, Inc., and Remington, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Wolf Creek"), challenging Wolf Creek's right to use an easement running through the Weekses' property from County Road 49 in Baldwin County to the west bank of Spring Branch, known locally as part of Van Wezel Lane ("the Lane"). From a judgment declaring that Wolf Creek has a right to use the Lane, but broadly restricting that right, the Weekses appealed (case no. 1041189) and Wolf Creek cross-appealed (case no. 1041264). We affirm that aspect of the judgment challenged in the appeal, but reverse that aspect of the judgment challenged in the cross-appeal and render a judgment for Wolf Creek.

I. Factual Background

All the land involved in these proceedings originally belonged to Rae Breed Walker and her husband, Ralph A. Walker. The land lies in Baldwin County along the north side of the Magnolia River and on either side of a small tributary known as Spring Branch. Running along the western border of the Walker property is County Road 49.

In 1934, the Walkers began subdividing their property. In September of that year, the Walkers sold a tract east of Spring Branch to James Graham. In 1935, the Walkers conveyed a similarly situated tract to Josiah Test.

On March 29, 1939, the Walkers conveyed all their land on the west bank of Spring Branch to George N. Trich and Minnie B. Trich. Thus, following that conveyance, the Trich tract consisted of land bounded on the west by County Road 49, on the east by Spring Branch, and on the south by the Magnolia River. The Walker-to-Trich deed expressly "except[ed] therefrom a private lane across said lot and along the North bank of Magnolia River," namely, the Lane.

Through a succession of conveyances, the Trich tract passed to the Weekses on May 31, 1991. Each of those conveyances expressly reserved an easement in the Lane by "except[ing] a private road running along Magnolia River." The Weekses' deed contained an additional description of the Lane as being "an easement for a road right of way over and across the Southern portion thereof, roughly parallel to the Magnolia River, that affords ingress and egress to ownership lying East of Spring Branch, to and from County Highway No. 49."

Meanwhile, the Walkers continued to subdivide their property east of Spring Branch. In 1939, the Walkers conveyed to Dr. Arthur Owens a tract of land south of the tract conveyed to Test. By a separate conveyance dated December 2, 1939, the Walkers conveyed to Dr. Owens a perpetual easement of right of way, described, in pertinent part, as running along the north border of the Graham tract to the east border of the Graham tract. As defined by that conveyance, the Lane, once it crossed Spring Branch took a slight northward turn and the eastern end of the Lane terminated at the western border of land still owned by the Walkers, which now forms the eastern border of the land owned by Wolf Creek. The land granted to Dr. Owens forms a small portion of the land now owned by Wolf Creek. However, the Weekses do not challenge the right of persons living specifically within the metes and bounds of property formerly owned by Dr. Owens to use the Lane. In January 1941, the Walkers conveyed to George A. Brown a tract of land bordered on the west by Spring Branch and lying between the tracts conveyed to Graham and Test.

On December 8, 1945, the Walkers conveyed to M.J. Moore and T.G. Moore 130 acres abutting the properties of Graham, Brown, Test, and Owens on the east, the Magnolia River on the south, and United States Highway 98 on the north. The deed did not mention the Lane.

In March 1947, the Walkers conveyed to Earnest H. Kline and Josephine Kline a tract of land to the north of, and abutting, the Graham tract. The Kline conveyance expressly excepted the easement conveyed to Dr. Owens, which thus ran along the southern border of the Klines' tract.

In 1954, the Moores conveyed to Norman Van Wezel and Hannah Van Wezel 19.3 acres in the southwest portion of the tract the Moores had purchased from the Walkers. In June 1973, Hannah Van Wezel, then a widow, subdivided that 19.3 acres into 10 lots and recorded the subdivision in a plat map creating Magnolia Springs Estates. From 1985 through 1988, all 10 lots were sold, and some of the lots were occupied by residents.

Ultimately, Wolf Creek purchased all the land the Moores had conveyed to the Van Wezels. Additionally, Wolf Creek purchased land in the northwest portion of the tract the Walkers had conveyed to the Moores, lying north of the 19.3-acre Magnolia Springs Estates, as well as the tract conveyed by the Walkers to Dr. Owens. Consequently, the land owned by Wolf Creek abuts highway 98 on the north, Magnolia River on the south, and the east end of the Lane, which runs westward to County Road 49. Wolf Creek subsequently filed a "Declaration of Condominium of The Commons, a Condominium," dedicating its property to residential and commercial development. The Commons consists of 46 planned single-family residential units, two duplex units, for a total of 50 residential units, and four commercial units. At the time of the trial of this case, Wolf Creek had sold only a few of the residential units to individual residents of The Commons.

The Weekses objected to the use of that portion of the Lane crossing their property,1 particularly during the "construction phase" of The Commons, by parties associated with Wolf Creek, and they commenced this action. They sought a judgment declaring that Wolf Creek owns "no right, title, or interest in" the Lane and permanently enjoining Wolf Creek from using the Lane. After a bench trial, the court entered a final judgment, concluding, in pertinent part, that "the owners of The Commons, as the same now exists, are entitled to use [the Lane] . . . by virtue of the express grant of the easement . . . appurtenant." The court made this holding subject, however, to the following exceptions:

"1. The right of use shall exist only in favor of the owners of the record title to the 50 single family residential dwelling units in The Commons, together with those dependents of such owners who are related by blood or marriage to the owner and whose principal residence is in the unit.

"2. No right of use shall exist in favor of any owner of any part of the Commercial site in The Commons, including that designated on the plat as Unit C-1.

"3. No independent right of use shall exist in favor of guests or invitees of owners of residential dwelling units in The Commons, including those providing repairs or maintenance, utility or government employees, contractors, or family members other than those specifically included above.

"4. The purpose of any use shall be only for ingress to or egress from residential dwellings in The Commons and county road 49.

"5. No use may be made for the installation of utilities or other incidental uses.

"6. No use may be made for commercial or developmental purposes, including moving garbage from The Commons to a collection point at county road 49.

"7. Any use must be by passenger vehicle with a normal seating capacity of not more than 8 passengers, and no use may be made by any trailers, panel trucks, or buses.

"8. No pavement, hard surface or other improvement may be constructed on the easement which is more than 8 feet in width.

"9. The [Weekses], their heirs or assigns, shall be entitled to construct on the easement reasonable speed bumps or other similar traffic controls, with appropriate warnings.

"10. The property owners association in The Commons shall be required to keep and maintain in place a gate or access control similar to that which is presently in place at the east end of Van Wezel Lane and to take all steps within its power to ensure compliance by its members with the restrictions contained herein, including making keys available only to those owners in The Commons who are entitled to the use of Van Wezel Lane.

"11. The [Weekses], their heirs or assigns, shall be authorized at their discretion to construct and maintain a gate or other access control at the west end of Van Wezel Lane and to make keys available only to those entitled to the use of Van Wezel Lane."

In case no. 1041189, the Weekses appeal from that portion of the judgment holding that "the owners of The Commons, as the same now exists," have an express easement appurtenant over the Lane. In case no. 1041264, Wolf Creek cross-appeals from that portion of the judgment limiting its use of the Lane. We first address issues raised in the Weekses' appeal.

II. Case No. 1041189

In their appeal, the Weekses present two issues that we must address. First, they contend that the trial court erred in holding that their property is burdened by an express easement appurtenant to all the property acquired by Wolf Creek in the chain of title of the Van Wezels. Second, they argue that the trial court erred in failing to further limit the use of the Lane to the owners of units located on property acquired by Wolf Creek in the chain of title of Dr. Owens, which comprises only units 33 and 34 of The Commons as it currently exists. The second issue will be addressed in connection with Wolf Creek's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
35 cases
  • E.B. Invs., L.L.C. v. Pavilion Dev., L.L.C.
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 13 Mayo 2016
    ...no disputed facts and where the judgment is based entirely upon documentary evidence, our review is de novo. Weeks v. Wolf Creek Indus., Inc., 941 So.2d 263, 268–69 (Ala.2006).III. AnalysisA. Finality of judgment In Pavilion II, we approved the trial court's decision to resolve Pavilion's r......
  • Logan Cnty. Conservation Dist. v. Pleasant Oaks Homeowners Ass'n
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • 7 Junio 2016
    ...of the easement boundary and are designed to carry out the original intended purpose of the easement grant. See Weeks v. Wolf Creek Indus., Inc. , 941 So.2d 263, 269 (Ala.2006) (noting “the law favor[s] changes and improvements for the benefit of the dominant estate so long as the manifest ......
  • Campbell v. Bank of Am., N.A.
    • United States
    • Alabama Court of Civil Appeals
    • 13 Septiembre 2013
    ...Comm'n, 901 So.2d 678, 685 (Ala.2004) (quoting Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Small, 829 So.2d 743, 745 (Ala.2002)).”Weeks v. Wolf Creek Indus., Inc., 941 So.2d 263, 268–69 (Ala.2006).DiscussionI. The Campbells argued in the circuit court and they now maintain on appeal that Bank of America's allege......
  • Swindle v. Remington
    • United States
    • Alabama Supreme Court
    • 8 Marzo 2019
    ...and the " ‘ "judgment is based entirely upon documentary evidence," ’ " the Court reviews the matter de novo. Weeks v. Wolf Creek Indus., Inc., 941 So.2d 263, 268-69 (Ala. 2006) (quoting Padgett v. Conecuh Cty. Comm'n, 901 So.2d 678, 683 (Ala. 2004), quoting in turn Alfa Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sm......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT