Woodring v. Swieter

• Decision Date: 05 December 2006
• Docket Number: No. COA05-1367.,COA05-1367.
• Citation: 637 S.E.2d 269
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals
• Parties: Gary WOODRING and Henry Woodring, Plaintiffs, v. Robert K. SWIETER, a/k/a Robert K. Swieter, Sr., Steven J. Swieter and wife, Rebecca Pierucci-Swieter, Thomas Andrew Stahl and wife Virginia R. Stahl, f/k/a Virginia R. Swieter and a/k/a Virginia Varian Swieter Stahl, Mark S. Swieter and wife, Kimberly Swieter, Robert K. Swieter, Jr. and wife, Elaine G. Swieter, and Blue Ridge Mountain Spring Water Company, Inc., Defendants, and Jerome C. Herring, Trustee, Lien holder.

637 S.E.2d 269

Gary WOODRING and Henry Woodring, Plaintiffs, v. Robert K. SWIETER, a/k/a Robert K. Swieter, Sr., Steven J. Swieter and wife, Rebecca Pierucci-Swieter, Thomas Andrew Stahl and wife Virginia R. Stahl, f/k/a Virginia R. Swieter and a/k/a Virginia Varian Swieter Stahl, Mark S. Swieter and wife, Kimberly Swieter, Robert K. Swieter, Jr. and wife, Elaine G. Swieter, and Blue Ridge Mountain Spring Water Company, Inc., Defendants, and Jerome C. Herring, Trustee, Lien holder.

No. COA05-1367.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

December 5, 2006.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Appeal by plaintiffs from orders entered 16 May and 5 July 2005 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. in Watauga County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 2006.

Charles E. Clement and Jeffery M. Hedrick, Boone, for plaintiffs-appellants.

di Santi Watson Capua & Wilson, by Anthony S. di Santi, Boone, for defendants-appellees.

GEER, Judge.

Plaintiffs Gary and Henry Woodring appeal from two orders of the superior court awarding summary judgment to defendants, Robert K. Swieter, Sr., Steven J. Swieter, Rebecca Pierucci-Swieter, Thomas Andrew Stahl, Virginia R. Stahl, Mark S. Swieter, Kimberly Swieter, Robert K. Swieter, Jr., Elaine G. Swieter (collectively "the Swieter defendants"), and Blue Ridge Mountain Spring Water Company, Inc. ("the Water Company"). The trial court concluded that defendants were entitled to: (1) an easement across plaintiffs' property for ingress and egress; and (2) an underground easement to maintain a water pipeline for transporting spring water from their property to a state road for sale. At oral argument before this Court, plaintiffs conceded that the Swieter defendants have an easement for ingress and egress. As a result, the primary issue remaining on appeal is whether the trial court properly concluded, as a matter of law, that defendants have acquired an easement for their waterline.

Because the evidence establishes that Henry Woodring did not, as of the filing of the lawsuit, own any of the property over which the claimed easements run, we dismiss plaintiff Henry Woodring's appeal for lack of standing. With respect to the pipeline easement, we hold that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment to defendants. The evidence in the record establishes no basis upon which defendants are entitled to an easement for their pipeline. Defendants were, however, entitled to summary judgment on plaintiff Gary Woodring's claims for trespass, nuisance, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices. Accordingly, we dismiss in part, affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part.

Facts

This case involves six pieces of real estate and one right of way. Three of the real estate parcels are presently owned by plaintiffs: a 23.5 acre tract owned jointly by plaintiffs Gary and Henry Woodring; a 28.62 acre tract owned solely by plaintiff Gary Woodring; and a 2 acre tract also owned solely by plaintiff Gary Woodring. These three tracts adjoin to create a rough vertical rectangle (the "Woodring Tract").

The Swieter defendants own three large adjoining parcels that form a rough "horseshoe" around the west, north, and east sides of the Woodring Tract (the "Swieter Tract"). The Swieter Tract is comprised of: a 50 acre parcel, adjoining the west side of the Woodring Tract and extending northward; a 43.941 acre parcel, adjoining the north side of the Woodring Tract; and a 51.645 acre parcel extending about one third of the way down the eastern side of the Woodring Tract.

State Road 1335 is located south of both the Woodring and Swieter Tracts. Access to the Swieter Tract is provided by "Creek Road," which runs north/south between the lower western corner of the easternmost Swieter parcel and State Road 1335. As Creek Road heads south from the Swieter Tract, it curves slightly west into the Woodring Tract, traveling through it until reaching State Road 1335.

Although plaintiffs once resided on the Woodring Tract, they left North Carolina and moved to Texas in 1971. In 1978, certain members of the Swieter family acquired the 43.941 acre and 51.645 acre parcels of the Swieter Tract from their predecessors in interest, the Gilleys. The deed for this transaction included a conveyance of all "right, title and interest" the Gilleys had in any rights of way leading to the Swieter Tract. The parties agree that this conveyance refers to Creek Road, and, at oral argument, plaintiffs conceded that this did in fact convey a valid roadway easement, appurtenant to the Swieter Tract, over Creek Road.

Shortly after acquiring the property in 1978, the Swieter family improved Creek Road, which was at that time substantially washed out, overgrown, and unreachable by car. The Swieters have since used Creek Road continuously as their only means of access to and from State Road 1335.

In 1991, certain members of the Swieter family formed the Water Company to sell natural spring water found on the Swieter Tract. In 1992, the members of the Swieter family with ownership interests in the Water Company executed two easements to the Water Company: one granting access to the Swieter Tract via Creek Road and the other "for the purpose of installing, inspecting, maintaining and repairing a potable water line" along Creek Road.

An underground waterline was subsequently installed along Creek Road to transmit water from the Swieter Tract to a filling station installed by the Swieters pursuant to a lease on a third party's property near the State Road. During this project, the Swieters also improved Creek Road by widening the road and adding more gravel and culverts to facilitate proper maintenance.

The Water Company leased a 10 acre portion of the northern 43.941 acre parcel of the Swieter Tract in 1994. Since 1992, the Water Company has continuously inspected, maintained, and repaired Creek Road and piped water through the underground waterline.

In 1998, plaintiff Henry Woodring returned to North Carolina for the first time since 1971 and discovered defendants' improvements and alterations on Creek Road. On 6 May 2004, plaintiffs filed suit against defendants in Watauga County Superior Court, alleging trespass, unjust enrichment, and unfair trade practices. Following discovery, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and, on 16 May 2005, Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. denied both plaintiffs' and defendants' motions with respect to the waterline easement along Creek Road, but awarded defendants summary judgment "as to a roadway easement for ingress and egress." Following a motion by plaintiffs to reconsider, however, Judge Guice also awarded defendants summary judgment "as to a waterline easement running along the roadway easement." Plaintiffs timely appealed to this Court.

I

We first address defendants' contentions related to plaintiff Henry Woodring's standing. Standing "refers to whether a party has a sufficient stake in an otherwise justiciable controversy so as to properly seek adjudication of the matter." Neuse River Found., Inc. v. Smithfield Foods, Inc., 155 N.C.App. 110, 114, 574 S.E.2d 48, 51 (2002), disc. review denied, 356 N.C. 675, 577 S.E.2d 628 (2003). "`If a party does not have standing to bring a claim, a court has no subject matter jurisdiction to hear the claim.'" Coker v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 172 N.C.App. 386, 391, 617 S.E.2d 306, 310 (2005) (quoting Estate of Apple v. Commercial Courier Express, Inc., 168 N.C.App. 175, 177, 607 S.E.2d 14, 16, disc. review denied, 359 N.C. 632, 613 S.E.2d 688 (2005)), aff'd per curiam, 360 N.C. 398, 627 S.E.2d 461 (2006). As is generally the case with issues impacting our subject matter jurisdiction, the issue of standing may be raised for the first time on appeal. Town of Spruce Pine v. Avery County, 123 N.C.App. 704, 710, 475 S.E.2d 233, 237 (1996), rev'd on other grounds, 346 N.C. 787, 488 S.E.2d 144 (1997).

Defendants contend Henry Woodring lacked any interest in the Woodring Tract on the date plaintiffs brought this action. Standing is assessed at the time the complaint is filed. Messer v. Town of Chapel Hill, 346 N.C. 259, 260, 485 S.E.2d 269, 270 (1997). Henry deeded his interest in the 2 acre portion of the Woodring Tract to Gary Woodring in November 1998 and subsequently quitclaimed his interests in the 28.62 acre and 23.5 acre parcels to Gary on 3 July 2003. Plaintiffs Henry and Gary Woodring then jointly filed this suit on 6 May 2004. As Henry had conveyed any and all interest in the Woodring Tract to Gary prior to the filing of the complaint, Henry lacked standing to bring this action. See Beachcomber Props., L.L.C. v. Station One, Inc., 169 N.C.App. 820, 824, 611 S.E.2d 191, 194 (2005) (plaintiff did not have standing when it neither owned nor had contracted to purchase any portion of disputed real property).

Henry nonetheless argues that he had standing because Henry and Gary meant for the 3 July 2003 quitclaim deed to convey separate real property unrelated to this action, and the quitclaim's inclusion of his portions of the Woodring Tract was purely accidental. Plaintiffs point to the fact that, on 15 April 2005, they filed a correction deed to this effect.

In the absence of some other fatal defect, deeds containing mutual mistakes are merely voidable and not void. See 23 Am. Jur.2d Deeds § 191 (2002) ("Mistake renders a deed voidable only. The deed, in other words, conveys title to the grantee therein ...."). See also Mock v. Mock, 77 N.C.App. 230, 231, 334 S.E.2d 409, 409 (1985) ("[A] written instrument may be reformed on the grounds of mutual mistake ...." (emphasis added)). Such deeds are, therefore, valid until challenged. See Daniels v. Montgomery Mut. Ins. Co., 320 N.C. 669, 676, 360 S.E.2d 772, 777 (1987) (noting that a void order is "`a nullity and may be attacked ... or may simply be ignored,'" whereas "`a voidable order stands until it is corrected'" (emphases added) (quoting State v....