Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson

Court of Appeals of Tennessee·Decided January 13, 1997·No. 02A01-9601-CH-00020·Published

Opinion

I N THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE FILED Jan. 13, 1997 WESTERN SECTI ON AT JACKSON Cecil Crowson, Jr. Appellate Court Clerk _______________________________

CLYDE TULL, ) Che s t e r Count y Cha nc e r y Cou r t ) No. 8596 Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt , ) ) v. ) ) C/ A NO. 02A01- 9601- CH- 00020 PAUL W LSON,I ) ) De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e . ) _ _ _ _ _ _ _____________________________________________________ _ _ _

Fr o m t he Cha nc e r y Cour t of Che s t e r Count y a t He nde r s on, Ho no r a bl e Joe C. M r i s , Judge or

M c ha e l L. W i nm i e an, TATUM AND TATUM He nde r s on, Te nne s s e e , At t or n e y f or Pl a i nt i f f - Appe l l a nt .

M c ha e l T. Tabor , i J a c k s on, Te nne s s e e At t o r ne y f or De f e nda nt - Appe l l e e .

OPI NI ON FI LED:

AFFI RM AND REM ED ANDED

FRANKS, J. W FRANK CRAW . FORD, P. J. ( W S. ) : ( Conc ur s ) . FARMER, J . : ( Conc ur s )

I n t hi s a c t i on t he pl a i nt i f f s ought e xt r a or di na r y

r e l i e f t o pr e ve nt de f e nd a nt f r om i nt e r f e r i ng wi t h pl a i nt i f f ’ s

u s e o f a r oa dwa y, a nd f o r da ma ge s f or pa s t i nt e r f e r e nc e .

Pl a i nt i f f a ve r r e d t ha t he wa s e nt i t l e d t o us e t he

r o a d wa y be c a us e i t wa s e i t he r a publ i c r oa d or he ha d a c qui r e d

t h e r i ght t hr ough pr e s c r i pt i ve us e .

Appe l l a nt , Tul l , r e s i de s i mme di a t e l y s out h of

Ap p e l l e e W l s on’ s f a r m. i Tul l t e s t i f i e d t ha t he ha d t r a ve l e d

t h e r o a d c r os s i ng W l s on ’ s pr ope r t y t o a c c e s s hi s own f a r m. i

W e n W l s on e r e c t e d g a t e s a c r os s t he r oa d, t hi s a c t i on wa s h i

f i l e d , a nd upon t r i a l , t he Cha nc e l l or r ul e d i n f a vor of t he

d e f e n d a nt on a l l i s s ue s .

Fi r s t , Tul l i ns i s t s t he r oa d wa s a publ i c wa y. A

p r i v a t e r oa d ma y be i mpl i e dl y de di c a t e d t o t he publ i c by t he

f a i l u r e of t he owne r t o obj e c t t o us e by t he publ i c . Re e v e s

v . Pe r k i ns , 509 S. W 2d 233, 235 ( Te nn. App. 1973) . . Suc h us e

mu s t b e f or a l ong pe r i od of t i me a nd unde r c l a i m of r i ght ,

a n d n o t me r e l y pe r mi s s i ve us e . W l s on v . Ac r e e , 37 S. W 90, 9 7 i .

Te n n . 378 ( Te nn. 1896) . Re pa i r or c ont r ol by a gove r nme nt

e n t i t y i s a n e l e me nt of e vi de nc e i n de t e r mi ni ng whe t he r a r o a d

h a s b e c ome publ i c . Sha r p v . M nat t , 69 Te nn. 375, 1 Le a 37 5 , y

2 2 Le g . Re p. 205 ( Te nn. 1878) . Anot he r f a c t or i s whe t he r t h e

o wn e r i nt e nde d t o pe r ma ne nt l y pa r t wi t h t he r oa d a nd ve s t i t

wi t h t he publ i c . M Ki nne y v . Dunc an, 118 S. W 683, 121 Te n n . c .

2 6 5 ( Te nn. 1909) . The bur de n r e s t s upon t he pl a i nt i f f t o

e s t a b l i s h t ha t a r oa d c r os s i ng pr i va t e l a nd i s a publ i c r oa d .

Re e v e s .

Tul l r e l i e s o n Re e v e s a r gui ng t ha t i t s f a c t s a r e

a n a l o g ous t o t hi s c a s e . I n Re e v e s , p l a i nt i f f ’ s wi t ne s s e s

t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he r oa d ha d be e n i n e xi s t e nc e a nd us e d by

a n y o n e who wi s he d t o f or mor e t ha n f i f t y ye a r s . Al l ma nne r s

o f t r a ns por t a t i on we r e u s e d a nd no owne r of t he pr ope r t y

f e n c e d of f t he e nds of t he r oa d or r e s t r i c t e d t he us e . Cou n t y

e mp l o y e e s t e s t i f i e d t ha t t he c ount y ha d gr a de d t he r oa d

s e v e r a l t i me s . A pos t a l wor ke r ha d us e d t he r oa d a s pa r t of

h i s r o ut e . De f e nda nt ’ s wi t ne s s e s of f e r e d s ome oppos i ng

t e s t i mony but t he Tr i a l Cour t f ound t ha t t he pl a i nt i f f s ha d

c a r r i e d t he bur de n of pr ovi ng t ha t a publ i c r oa d ha d be e n

e s t a b l i s he d.

A c ompa r i s on of t he t e s t i mony i n t hi s c a s e s hows

t ha t W l s on’ s wi t ne s s e s t e s t i f i e d t o t he poor c ondi t i on, r a r e i

u s e , a nd pr i ma r i l y pr i va t e ma i nt e na nc e of t he r oa d. The r e wa s

a l s o t e s t i mony t ha t W l s on ha d gi ve n Tul l pe r mi s s i on t o us e i

t h e r o a d a nd t ha t a c c e s s t o t he r oa d wa s bl oc ke d i n t he f a l l

o f ma n y ye a r s by pl a c i ng a t r e e a c r os s t he r oa d.

Our r e vi e w of t he t r i a l c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of f a c t i s

d e n o v o upon t he r e c or d , wi t h a pr e s umpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s .

T. R. A. P. 13( d) . The e v i de nc e doe s not pr e ponde r a t e a ga i ns t

t he Tr i a l Cour t ’ s f i ndi ngs t ha t pl a i nt i f f f a i l e d t o c a r r y t he

3 b u r d e n i n s howi ng t ha t t he r oa d ha d be c a me a publ i c wa y.

Fi na l l y, i t i s a r gue d t ha t t he Cour t e r r e d i n

f i n d i ng t ha t Tul l di d not ha ve a pr e s c r i pt i ve e a s e me nt t o us e

t h e r o a dwa y.

An e a s e me nt by pr e s c r i pt i on i s a c qui r e d by us e wh i c h

i s ?a dve r s e , unde r c l a i m of r i ght , c ont i nuous , uni nt e r r upt e d ,

o p e n , vi s i bl e , e xc l us i ve , a nd wi t h t he knowl e dge a nd

a c qu i e s c e nc e of t he owne r of t he s e r vi e nt t e ne me nt , a nd mus t

c o n t i n ue f or t he f ul l pr e s c r i pt i ve pe r i od. . . . ? Hous e v .

Cl o s e , 48 Te nn. App. 341, 346 S. W 2d 445, 447 ( 1961) . . The

a d v e r s e pos s e s s or ha s t he bur de n of e s t a bl i s hi ng by c l e a r a n d

c o n v i nc i ng pr oof s uc h a dve r s e us e . W t wor t h v . Hut c hi s on, hi

7 3 1 S. W 2d 915, 917 ( Te nn. App. 1986) . . One who e nt e r s upon a

p r i v a t e r oa dwa y f or t e mp or a r y us e wi l l not s a t i s f y t he

r e q u i r e me nt of a dve r s e pos s e s s i on. Se e Round Mount ai n Lumb e r

& Co a l Co. v . Bas s , 136 Te nn. 687, 700, 191 S. W 341 ( 1916) ; .

M c a mmon v . M r e di t h, 8 30 S. W 2d 577 ( Te nn. App. 1991) . a e .

I n t hi s c a s e , t he Cha nc e l l or f ound:

t he r oa d ma y ha ve be e n us e d by t he publ i c , but on t he s e oc c a s i ons i t wa s i n t he pa s t , a nd wa s f or f a r mi ng or hunt i ng pur pos e s . For s e ve r a l ye a r s , t h e de f e nda nt ha s bl oc ke d t he r oa d wi t h a t r e e i n t he wi nt e r t i me i n or de r t o pr ohi bi t hunt e r s f r om us i n g it. At be s t t he r oa d i s ve r y r ough, not s ui t a bl e f or pa s s a ge b y a n a ut omobi l e , c ombi ne s , or l oa de d t r uc ks . The r oa d wa s bui l t a nd ma i nt a i ne d by M . r W l s on’ s f a mi l y i n t he pa s t a nd i s now ma i nt a i ne d b y i t he de f e nda nt a nd Gl e nn M ne s s . a The pl a i nt i f f wa s gi ve n pe r mi s s i on by t he de f e nda nt t o us e t he r oa d f or f a r m pur pos e s , whi c h wa s t he ne i ghbor l y t hi ng t o do. The pl a i nt i f f i s not l a ndl oc ke d, a nd ha s a t l e a s t t hr e e ( 3) ot he r r out e s on pa ve d or gr a ve l r oa ds t o ge t t o hi s f a r mi ng ope r a t i ons .

Aga i n, our r e vi e w i s de nov o upon t he r e c or d, wi t h a

p r e s u mpt i on of c or r e c t ne s s of t he f i ndi ngs of t he Tr i a l Cou r t

4 u n l e s s t he e vi de nc e pr e ponde r a t e s ot he r wi s e . M Cammon; c

T. R. A. P. 1 3( d) .

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson, (Tenn. Ct. App. 1997).

Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson (Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

House v. Close
346 S.W.2d 445 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1961)
State Nat. Bank of Bonham v. Hester
1 S.W.2d 915 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1928)
Jones v. Clark
30 S.W.2d 577 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1930)
Reeves v. Perkins
509 S.W.2d 233 (Court of Appeals of Tennessee, 1973)