As a Tennessee real estate litigation attorney, I enjoyed reading a recent Tennessee Court of Appeals case covering easements. In Vise v. Pearcy Tennessee River Resort, Inc., a landowner attempted to force a neighboring property to grant it an easement across its land. While Vise had enjoyed access to its land by alternate routes for farming purposes, the plaintiff wanted a course to create an easement via a private condemnation action so it could use its land for another purpose: an RV park. The neighboring landowner refused to participate.
The Court of Appeals addressed whether the trial court properly concluded that the Appellants were not entitled to an easement under Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-101 or Section 54-14-102. Both Sections 101 and 102 of Chapter 14 provide for a private condemnation action of another‘s lands. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-101(a)(1) provides for a condemnation action ―[w]hen the lands of any person are surrounded or enclosed by the lands of any other person or persons who refuse to allow to the person a private road to pass to or from the person‘s land….‖ Id. § 54-14-101(a)(1).
Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-102 provides:
Any person owning lands, ingress or egress to and from which is…obstructed entirely from a public road or highway by the intervening lands of another, or who has no adequate and convenient outlet from the lands to a public road in the state, by reason of the intervening lands of another, is given the right to have an easement or right-of-way condemned and set aside for the benefit of the lands over and across the intervening lands or property
Id.
The trial court found that ―[b]ecause the [Appellants] have ingress and egress access which is adequate and convenient, they are not entitled to obtain an easement under Tenn. Code Ann § 43-14-101 et seq.‖ The trial court further found that the Appellants ―have an adequate and convenient access to their property to use the property for farming – the same use of the land prior to access over [the Appellee‘s] property.
Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-102 is to be strictly construed against the right of the private individual to expropriate the private property of another. Jones v. Ewell, No. M1999-00883-COA-R3-CV, 2000 WL 298246, at *2, (Tenn. Ct. App. March 23, 2000) (quoting Draper v. Webb, 418 S.W.2d 775, 776 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1967)). While petitioners in a private condemnation action are entitled to the best use of their property, they have no right to take [another‘s] property for such use…or any use but that authorized by the statute. Id. (quoting Vinson v. Nashville, C. & St. Louis Railway, 321 S.W.2d 841, 844 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1958)).
The Vise case is similar to Draper v. Webb. In Draper, private landowners planned to subdivide their property. Id., 418 S.W.2d 775, 776. In order to obtain more convenient access to the section of the property that the petitioners planned to subdivide, the Draper Appellants sought to condemn a right-of-way over an adjoining landowner‘s property. Id. The Court of Appeals concluded that, while the petitioners were entitled to make the best use of their property, the condemnation statute did not allow them to improve the use of their property by taking another‘s land if their existing access was adequate and convenient for the purposes for which the land was currently being used. See Id.
It is undisputed that by using the blacktop road the Resort constructed, Vise can currently access their property for the purposes of farming. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the Appellants have been denied access to their property for farming purposes. In fact, during Mr. Vise‘s testimony, when asked if ―anybody, the TVA or [the Appellees], ever had any access denials by anyone for farming purposes, he answered “Not for farming purposes.” It is also undisputed that Vise was seeking to make better use of their property by developing it as an RV park. This was not allowed. The Court refused to allow an easement against the will of the Resort.
The Court similarly refused to permit condemnation pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated 54-14-101. Strictly construing the statute, the Court concluded that a refusal of access to property is a necessary element before a petitioner may bring a condemnation action pursuant to Tennessee Code Annotated Section 54-14-101. Because there was no refusal to allow access for farming, there was no grounds to permit an easement.
If you are in need of a lawyer to help with a Tennessee case involving adverse possession or property disputes in general, please contact me at (901) 527-2125 or E-mail Me.