DeNAPOLI Et Al v. OWEN Et Al.
341 Ga. App. 517
| Ga. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Anthony and Tina DeNapoli purchased Lot 2 (1.97 acres) from Kenneth and Kathy Owen, who retained adjoining Lot 3 and other parcels from an original ~103-acre tract.
- Plats for Lots 2 and 3 showed a notation "proposed 20' easement" along the western edge of Lot 2, but the deed to the DeNapolis did not expressly reserve any easement for Lot 3.
- After closing, the Owens began clearing a 20-foot-wide driveway corridor across Lot 2 toward Lot 3; DeNapolis sued for injunctive relief, trespass, and related claims; Owens counterclaimed for declaratory relief and injunctive relief to permit the driveway.
- At bench trial the trial court ruled for the Owens, finding the DeNapolis had notice and that an easement existed; the court entered declaratory and injunctive relief in favor of the Owens.
- On appeal the Court of Appeals reviewed de novo the legal issues, examined whether an express easement (via deed or plat), an implied easement (way of necessity), or other doctrines supported an easement, and reversed the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (DeNapoli) | Defendant's Argument (Owen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an express easement was reserved across Lot 2 | No express easement in deed; plat notation "proposed 20' easement" insufficient | Plat notation and subdivision documents reserved an access easement for Lot 3 | Held: No express easement — the word "proposed" and absence of a reservation in the deed do not create an express easement |
| Whether the plat language created an enforceable easement | Plat language was not an express grant; buyer had no notice creating a binding easement | Plat marking amounted to a recorded dedication/reservation under prior cases | Held: Plat marking here was merely a proposal; unlike precedents where plats created an immediate grant, this plat did not evidence intent to create an easement |
| Whether an easement by implication (way of necessity) existed at severance | No necessity existed when the Owens sold Lot 2 because Owens retained alternate access from Lot 3 through other owned land | Owens argued Lot 3 was effectively landlocked and needed access over Lot 2 | Held: No easement by implication — the sequence of conveyances and lack of necessity at severance preclude an implied way of necessity |
| Whether subsequent sale of Lot 3 moots appeal or affects prior easement rights | Appeal remains live because central question is whether an easement was created before sale to DeNapolis | Owens argued sale of Lot 3 moots the dispute | Held: Not moot — subsequent sale does not eliminate review of whether an easement was created before DeNapolis purchase |
Key Cases Cited
- Deas v. Hughes, 264 Ga. 9 (1994) (discusses requirements for recording-based creation of easements and how plat language can operate)
- Hernandez v. Whittemore, 287 Ga. App. 251 (2007) (plat language held to create an express access easement where the grantor recorded the lot as an access easement)
- Bruno v. Evans, 200 Ga. App. 437 (1991) (explains easement by implication/way of necessity and effect of sequence of conveyances)
- Central Mtg. Co. v. Humphrey, 328 Ga. App. 474 (2014) (standard of review on appeal from bench trial; deference to factual findings supported by evidence)