Court reviews whether trial court properly dismissed a case involving an easement across a parcel of land

LYNN ROGERS v. JON ROACH, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. June 20, 2012)

Landowner owns property that was once part of a single parcel of land. The only way she can access her property is over a gravel roadway approximately nine feet wide that crosses through her neighbors’ property. One of Landowner’s neighbors erected fence posts near the roadway that Landowner alleges interfere with her ability to pull her horse trailers back and forth to her property.

Landowner filed a complaint alleging she has the right to a forty foot easement across her neighbors’ property. After Landowner presented her proof at trial, Defendant neighbors moved for involuntary dismissal pursuant to Tenn. R. Civ. P. 41.02. The trial court dismissed Landowner’s complaint.

We reverse the dismissal as to the Landowner’s claim for interference with her use and enjoyment of the easement because she presented evidence to establish the elements of that claim. We also reverse the dismissal of the claim for damages resulting from the interference. Dismissal of the other claims by Landowner is affirmed. We remand this case for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
https://www.tba.org/sites/default/files/rogersl_062012.pdf

Court reviews the award of an easement in a boundary line dispute

MICHAEL HONG v. LEROY FOUST, ET AL. (Tenn. Ct. App. February 8, 2012)

In this boundary line dispute, the defendants sought to claim property beyond a road known as "Creek Road." The trial court concluded that the road constituted the defendants' southern boundary.

However, because the plaintiff's complaint sought the adoption of a survey that conceded a small strip of land south of Creek Road to the defendants, along with the fact that the plaintiff testified that he believed that the defendants owned some property south of Creek Road, the trial court granted the defendants a strip alongside the road about four feet deep.

After the defendants moved to conform their pleading to the proof and sought relief under the doctrine of adverse possession, the trial court reopened the proof to consider adverse use. Another opinion was issued awarding the defendants a strip extending approximately ten feet from the southern edge of Creek Road. The defendants appeal. We affirm the findings of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2012/hongm_020812.pdf

Court determines the existence of an easement

CHARLIE LEE INGRAM v. REBECCA AND RANDY WASSON (Tenn. Ct. App. December 22, 2011)

This appeal concerns the existence of an easement. The dispute between the two adjoining landowners began after the defendant landowners blocked the plaintiff neighboring landowner's access to a roadway crossing over the defendants' property. The plaintiff landowner filed this action seeking condemnation or a finding of an implied easement for access to the roadway over the defendants' property, arguing that his property was landlocked. Upon the admission into evidence of several affidavits, the trial court found both an easement implied from prior use and, in the alternative, an easement created by necessity. The defendant landowners now appeal. We affirm the decision of the trial court.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/ingramc_112211.pdf

Court reviews whether plaintiffs were fraudulently induced to sign a sewer easement agreement with the City of Memphis

FRANCES SEWARD BENNETT and DON SEWARD v. CITY OF MEMPHIS (Tenn. Ct. App. December 21, 2011)

Plaintiffs sued the City of Memphis, claiming that they were fraudulently induced to sign a sewer easement agreement. The trial court granted summary judgment to the City of Memphis. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Opinion available at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2011/bennettf_122111.pdf

Court reviews case involving an easement claim

MARY LOU GAMMO v. RICHARD ROLEN, et al. (Tenn. Ct. App. July 19, 2010)

The parties were previously before this Court in an appeal by reason of an easement claim by the plaintiff. This Court ruled that plaintiff had an easement, and we remanded the case to the Trial Court and defendants filed a motion to determine the extent of the easement. A trial ensued and the Trial Judge ordered defendants to remove a gate and a fence which impaired plaintiff"s use of her easement. On appeal, we affirm the Judgment of the Trial Court, as modified.

Opinion may be found at:
http://www.tba2.org/tba_files/TCA/2010/rolenr_071910.pdf