Daniel Allen and Anita Denice Weatherholt v. Jeffrey Neal Weatherholt
234 W. Va. 722
W. Va.2015Background
- Parties: Jeffrey Weatherholt (respondent/plaintiff below) sued siblings Daniel and Anita Weatherholt (petitioners/defendants below) over obstructions in a deeded 20-foot right-of-way and a water line crossing petitioners’ property.
- Deeds/rights: Respondent’s deed grants a 20-foot access right-of-way from Frosty Hollow Road to his property and a separate 12-foot utility easement; paved roadway is ~12 feet wide within that 20-foot corridor.
- Facts on obstructions: Petitioners placed objects (children’s toys, rock/flower gardens, firewood), two wooden outbuildings with doors that swing into the easement, and wooden “speed bumps” with protruding nails along the right-of-way; respondent sought injunctive relief.
- Water line facts: Respondent installed a water line in 1998–99 across then-owner Ruth Barr’s land outside the 12-foot utility easement without prior permission, informed Barr after installation, and Barr did not object; petitioners acquired the property in 2001 and did not object until 2013.
- Procedural posture: Circuit Court granted a permanent injunction forbidding petitioners from placing obstructions in the 20-foot right-of-way and held respondent’s water line is an appurtenant prescriptive easement; petitioners appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jeffrey) | Defendant's Argument (Daniel/Anita) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Right to jury trial | No jury required for equitable injunction; bench trial appropriate | Petitioners demanded jury for injunction and their trespass/nuisance counterclaim | Court: No right to jury for injunction; petitioners waived jury on counterclaim—bench trial proper |
| Permanent injunction against obstructions in 20-ft ROW | Objects (toys, outbuilding doors, speed bumps) materially interfered with use of full 20-ft easement; injunction warranted | Obstructions were outside the 12-ft paved travel portion and thus not obstructive | Court: Easement is 20 ft wide by deed; unpaved obstructions and outbuilding doors habitually interfered — injunction affirmed |
| Water line as prescriptive easement | Placement outside 12-ft utility without prior permission was adverse, known, continuous >10 years → prescriptive easement appurtenant to respondent’s land | Placement was with owner’s (Barr’s) implied permission or acquiescence, so not adverse | Court: Installation occurred without prior permission (adverse); owner later knew and acquiesced for >10 years → prescriptive easement established |
Key Cases Cited
- Stuart v. Realty Corp., 141 W. Va. 627, 92 S.E.2d 891 (1956) (trial court’s discretion governs injunction relief)
- State v. Vance, 207 W. Va. 640, 535 S.E.2d 484 (2000) (appellate standards: factual findings clearly erroneous; legal questions de novo)
- Johnson v. Gould, 60 W. Va. 84, 53 S.E. 798 (1906) (equity has jurisdiction to enjoin continuing interference with an easement)
- Human Rights Comm’n v. Tenpin Lounge, 158 W. Va. 349, 211 S.E.2d 349 (1974) (equitable issues are generally decided by the court, not a jury)
- Davis v. Settle, 43 W. Va. 17, 26 S.E. 557 (1896) (matters traditionally in equity do not give a constitutional right to jury trial)
- O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010) (elements and definition of prescriptive easement; adverse use requires lack of owner’s permission)