Biddix v. McConnell
| Docket Number: | 2004-CA-00150-SCT | |
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 09-15-2005 Opinion Author: SMITH, C.J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Protective covenants - Prescriptive easement Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Graves and Randolph, JJ., Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz and Dickinson Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 08-08-2003 Appealed from: Jackson County Chancery Court Judge: Jaye A. Bradley, Sr. Disposition: Chancery court judgment compelling them to remove a concrete golf cart path and out-of-bounds markers placed on the homeowners’ property. Case Number: 99-0123-JB |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | MARTHA L. BIDDIX, EXECUTRIX OF THE
ESTATE OF JAMES R. BIDDIX, AND GREGORY
L. WILLIAMS |
HENRY P. PATE, EDDIE C. WILLIAMS |
||
| Appellee: | MR. AND MRS. CYRUS McCONNELL, JR. AND MR. AND MRS. CLIFTON L. NOEL | JOHN MAJOR KINARD, KEVIN M. MELCHI |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Real property - Protective covenants - Prescriptive easement |
| Summary of the Facts: | Mr. and Mrs. Cyrus McConnell and Mr. and Mrs. Clifton Noel make up two neighboring households, each owning and residing on land abutting the St. Andrews Golf Course via the backyards, or the residences’ west sides. Pursuant to the subdivision’s protective covenants, the golf course retains an easement of twenty-five feet onto the McConnells’ and the Noels’ land from the course on the west. This easement is to be used for utilities and access to those utilities under the plain language of the covenant. The McConnells and the Noels have both planted and maintained shrubbery, as natural barriers, on the “home side” of the easement in order to help keep traffic from the golf course out of their yards. These barriers would have been placed closer to the golf course, but that would have interfered with the right of the golf course operators, James Biddix and Gregory Williams, to enter that land for utility purposes. Biddix and Williams installed a concrete golf cart path across the land of the McConnells and the Noels and the easement in question, and the McConnells and the Noels claim this was done in violation of the plain language of the covenant. Subsequent to the construction of the concrete path, the McConnells suffered significant drainage problems. Additionally, Biddix and Williams have continually placed out-of-bound markers and painted out-of-bounds lines in the yards of the McConnells and the Noels. After the construction of the cart path, Biddix and Williams began painting out-of-bounds lines on the property of the McConnells and the Noels. These lines were openly rejected by the McConnells and the Noels, and McConnell painted over them with green paint. Then, Biddix and Williams would come out and paint over the green paint with white paint, knowing that McConnell objected to the lines being there. The McConnells and the Noels filed a complaint against Biddix and Williams seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, attorney’s fees, and equitable relief. Biddix and Williams filed their answer and also asserted a counterclaim, sounding in adverse possession and prescriptive easement. The chancellor entered a judgment granting a permanent injunction, ordering the defendants to remove the offending golf cart pathway and any out of bounds makers within sixty days following the deadline for any appeal. The chancellor also denied any award of monetary damages and ordered that the property of the plaintiffs shall not be left in a state of disrepair and all debris existing therefrom shall be removed. Biddix and Williams appeal. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Protective covenants Biddix and Williams argue that the easement in question is unambiguous and permits the golf cart path and out-of-bounds area. They argue that the “[n]ecessary for the service of the property” language in the protective covenants clearly means the golf course. The McConnells and the Noels argue that the easement is only for installing or servicing utilities, and since the golf cart path is not needed for these purposes, it should be removed. The protective covenant provides “for the installation of utilities or other uses by it deemed to be necessary for the service of the property.” “Service” is defined as “to repair or provide maintenance for.” Therefore, under the plain language of the covenant, Biddix and Williams’s access to the easements must be related to repair and maintenance. During his testimony at trial, Williams admitted that the cart path was not necessary for servicing the utilities contained in the easement. Therefore, the chancellor correctly determined that since the easement is only for installing or servicing utilities and the path is not needed for those purposes, it should be removed. The second phrase found within the protective covenant that refutes the claims of Biddix and Williams is “[t]his reservation includes the right to re-enter upon any easement for the purpose of locating, erecting, maintaining and constructing any drain, culvert, sanitary or storm sewer, water main, electric and telephone lines, and other utilities.” This unambiguously states that the improvements made to the easement by Biddix and Williams must be related to utilities. Issue 2: Prescriptive easement Biddix and Williams argue that the chancellor erred in finding that an easement by prescription did not exist. The granting of a prescriptive easement would have given Biddix and Williams access to the McConnells’s and the Noels’ land beyond the 25-foot utility easement to place out- of- bounds markers for the golf course. To acquire property by adverse possession or by prescriptive easement the claimant must show that the possession was open, notorious, and visible; hostile; under claim of ownership; exclusive; peaceful; and continuous and uninterrupted for ten years. Biddix and Williams never claimed this land to be theirs, as evidenced by their reliance on the covenant granting them an easement. In addition, Biddix and Williams did not solely care for the property in question. Testimony provided by the Noels and McConnells both demonstrate that they provided the upkeep on the 25-foot easement, which is of course, their property. The easement granted in the covenant greatly limited the Noels’ and the McConnells’ ability to demonstrate their exclusive ownership and possession. The clear language of Protective Covenant No. 16 states that “any walls, fences, paving, planting, or other improvements placed thereon by the owner of the property on which the easement lies shall be removed, if required, by the undersigned or its assigns, without compensation to the owner of such lot.” Therefore, any structure, natural or not, that the Noels and the McConnells erected to firmly mark their boundary and prevent Biddix and Williams from placing out of bounds markers or the cart path upon their land was subject to removal without compensation. It would be inequitable to punish the McConnells and the Noels for failing to create a boundary to an unlawful intrusion onto their land, when that boundary could have been destroyed within the terms of the covenant if repairs or maintenance needed to be performed on the utilities present in the easement. The record clearly shows that McConnell objected to the use of the land by the golf course. Examples of his objections include picking up the out-of-bounds markers and throwing them back onto the course and also painting over the white lines put on his property by the golf course with green spray paint. The removal of boundary stakes, caring for the land, and granting Biddix and Williams and their predecessors an easement for utility purposes are all “physical interruptions” and/or “unequivocal act(s) of ownership” to defeat “uninterrupted for more than 10 years” element needed for a prescriptive easement. There is substantial evidence that supports the chancellor’s finding that a prescriptive easement does not exist. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
