Skates v. Bryant
| Docket Number: | 2000-CT-00835-SCT Linked Case(s): 2000-CA-00835-COA ; 2000-CT-00835-SCT ; 2000-CT-00835-SCT ; 2000-CT-00835-SCT ; 2000-CT-00835-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-20-2003 Opinion Author: Waller, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Real property - Private road - Common law dedication - Public road by prescription Judge(s) Concurring: Pittman, C.J., Smith, P.J., Cobb, Easley, Carlson and Graves, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Dissenting Author : McRae, P.J. Procedural History: Bench Trial Nature of the Case: CIVIL - REAL PROPERTY |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-11-2000 Appealed from: Adams County Chancery Court Judge: Percy L. Lynchard, Jr. Disposition: THE COURT FINDS NO THEORY UNDER WHICH RAY SKATES MAY CLAIM ANYTHING OTHER THAN PERMISSIVE USE OF QUASAR DRIVE AND FINDS THAT THE RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SAME IS VESTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE BRYANTS. THE COURT GRANTS THE RELIEF OF THE BRYANTS AND ENJOINS SKATES FROM THE USE OF SAID PROPERTY ABSENT PERMISSION BY THE BRYANTS. Case Number: 97-609 |
|
| Note: | The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals and the trial court. The Court of Appeals' opinion can be found at http://courts.ms.gov/Images/Opinions/Conv11129.pdf . Motion to Strike filed by Jeffery and Sheree Bryant is granted. Motion to Dismiss Writ as Improvidently Granted filed by Jeffery and Sheree Bryant is denied. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Ray Skates |
L. JACKSON LAZARUS
JOSEPH S. ZUCCARO |
||
| Appellee: | Jeffery Bryant and Sheree Bryant | WILLIAM F. RILEY BOBBY L. COX T. JACKSON LYONS |
|
|
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 - Private road - Common law dedication - Public road by prescription |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jeffery and Sheree Bryant filed a petition against Ray Skates to determine whether Quasar Drive was a private road that entitled them to its exclusive use or a public road to be used by Skates and the general public. The chancellor held that the right of ownership was vested exclusively in the Bryants and enjoined Skates from the use of Quasar Drive unless he was given permission to do so by the Bryants. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Common law dedication Skates argues that the Court of Appeals erred in holding that there was insufficient evidence for the chancellor to determine that a common law dedication of the road had occurred. A street will become a public street under common law dedication when the survey and sale of lots makes reference to the streets. The land in the present case was not sold according to a subdivided plat or map. The back lot which was initially sold by George Bryant to McManus, and later to Skates, was one large lot which was accessed by Quasar Drive. Quasar Drive was used by George as access for the residents of a trailer park; therefore, it was intended to be used by a restrictive group of people, not the public in general. Additionally, the conveyance from George to McManus was a wholly private act and not intended to benefit the public. Therefore, the Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the chancery court on this issue. Issue 2: Public road by prescription Skates argues that Quasar Drive is a public road by prescription. The necessary elements to establish a public road by prescription include: open, notorious and visible; hostile; under claim of ownership; exclusive; peaceful; and continuous and uninterrupted for ten years. There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the chancellor's conclusion that the use was permissive and the road was private. The Bryants testified that the use of Quasar Drive by Skates and others was with their knowledge and permission up until Jeffery Bryant sent the letter to Skates in 1997. Until that time, the element of hostility was missing. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
