Landowner Could "Reasonably Burden" Neighbor's Easement
The Court of Civil Appeals reaffirmed a longstanding principle of property law, holding that a property owner could erect a gate on his land, even though the gate crossed, and, “at worst,” “negligibly” burdened a neighbor’s easement. Hammond v. Lovvorn, No. 2070749 (Ala. Civ. App. Feb. 20, 2009).
The plaintiffs owned an easement across the defendant’s property. The easement took the form of a dirt road that provided the only access to the plaintiffs’ land. The plaintiffs did not live on this property.
Hoping to curb illegal dumping on his land, the defendant erected a gate across the entrance to the road. He offered the plaintiffs a key to the gate, so they could open it at will. The plaintiffs repeatedly refused the key, choosing instead to sue. The circuit court took the case on written factual stipulations and briefs. It entered a judgment for the plaintiffs, ordering the defendant to remove the gate and allow the plaintiffs “free and unfettered” access over their easement.
The Court of Civil Appeals reversed. It first noted that the lower court’s decision was entitled to no deference. This was because the facts, for their part, had been stipulated and written. “When a trial judge’s ruling is not based substantially on testimony presented live to the trial judge,” the reviewing court explained, “review of factual issues is de novo.” Likewise, “[w]here the facts are not disputed, the ore tenus standard does not apply,” and the trial court’s ruling receives “no presumption of correctness.” Questions of law do not fall under the ore tenus rule; legal rulings thus carry “no presumption of correctness” and attract de novo review.
The appellate court then turned to the merits of the case. Under long-established precedent, the defendant could maintain the gate as long as it did not impose an “unreasonable burden” on the easement. That question was one of “reasonableness under all the circumstances.”
Here, the court had little difficulty finding the gate reasonable. The defendant had been legitimately moved to erect the gate to prevent people from dumping trash on his land, which had in fact occurred. He placed the gate where, at some time in the past, a cable had stretched across the easement. Finally, he had offered the plaintiffs a key to the gate so that they could access their property at will. The court found the plaintiffs’ unexplained refusal of the key “unreasonable,” and the gate to impose, “at worst,” a “negligible” burden on the easement. The order of the lower court was reversed.
Ivan B. Cooper of Lightfoot, Franklin & White represented the prevailing defendant in this appeal.
