Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson

CourtCourt of Appeals of Tennessee
DecidedJanuary 13, 1997
Docket02A01-9601-CH-00020
StatusPublished

This text of Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson (Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

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

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

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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Clyde Tull v. Paul Wilson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clyde-tull-v-paul-wilson-tennctapp-1997.