Charlie Lee Ingram v. Rebecca and Randy Wasson
2011 Tenn. App. LEXIS 632
| Tenn. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Two neighboring parcels (Parcel 7 owned by Ingram and Parcel 6 owned by Wassons) are separated by Hollow Road that traverses the Wassons’ land and connects to Parcel 12 and a public road.
- Vacation Lands of America, Inc. (VLA) owned the larger tract and sold parcels including Parcel 12 and Parcel 7 in the early 1970s with language referencing a 50-foot road easement and access intent.
- Ingram acquired Parcel 12 in 2001 and Parcel 7 in 2002; Wassons owned Parcel 6 between them; Ingram alleged Hollow Road was the only feasible access to Parcel 7, which was effectively landlocked.
- Beginning around 2004, disputes arose as the Wassons allegedly blocked access to Hollow Road; Ingram sought an easement by implication or by necessity, or condemnation.
- The trial court found both an implied easement from prior use and an easement by necessity, based on affidavits submitted by both sides, and issued a final order in 2010 affirming those easements.
- The Court of Appeals reviews de novo the trial court’s factual findings on implied easement and necessity, with documentary evidence governing when witnesses did not testify live.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Easement implied from prior use | Ingram shows long-standing Hollow Road use prior to severance, implying a continuing easement. | Wassons contend no express or implied prior-use easement exists to Hollow Road and dispute permanence. | Implied easement from prior use affirmed; Hollow Road found to be continuous and permanent. |
| Easement created by necessity | Parcel 7 is landlocked; necessity supports creating an easement for access via Hollow Road. | No necessity proven; alternative routes or ridge road undermine necessity. | Easement by necessity affirmed; Hollow Road proper location for access recognized. |
| Characterization of the easement | Easement is appurtenant to Parcel 7 for ingress/egress rather than in gross. | Easement, if any, could be in gross or ambiguous in its scope. | Easement appurtenant; intended to benefit Ingram’s Parcel 7 rather than a mere personal right. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless v. Shelby County, 172 S.W.3d 574 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2005) (sets the four-element framework for implied easements and notes easement by necessity as related concept)
- Wood v. Starko, 197 S.W.3d 255 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006) (standard of review for factual findings when live testimony is not presented)
- Fowler v. Wilbanks, 48 S.W.3d 738 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2000) (continues analysis of implied easements and necessity in land disputes)
- Johnson v. Headrick, 237 S.W.2d 567 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1948) (earlier authority on easements and implied rights)
- Allison v. Allison, 193 S.W.2d 476 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1945) (early authority on conveyance and implied rights in property transfers)
- Wells v. Tennessee Bd. of Regents, 9 S.W.3d 779 (Tenn. 1999) (statutory and evidentiary principles for documentary proof and credibility in appeals)