John William Mayton v. Jane Oliver
247 So. 3d 312
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Orchard Plantation subdivision (1978) has a recorded plat, Drainage Plan, and restrictive covenants reserving easements "for drainage and utility purposes" and requiring they "remain unobstructed."
- A 6-inch PVC pipe beneath the private road/cul-de-sac channels runoff from Lots 3–4 toward Lot 5 (Oliver). Plaintiffs are owners of Lots 3–4–6; Oliver owns Lot 5. Dispute arose after heavy rains in 2014 when Oliver blocked the pipe/culvert to prevent flooding of her yard.
- Plaintiffs sued for permanent injunction and damages, alleging Oliver violated the covenants and interfered with express or prescriptive drainage easements. Oliver counterclaimed for damages and sought attorney’s fees after a preliminary injunction ordered her to unblock the pipe.
- At trial the chancellor found plaintiffs failed to prove (1) an express drainage easement (the plat only showed undefined "utility easements" and the recorded Drainage Plan did not support the plaintiffs’ claimed drainage pattern) and (2) a prescriptive easement (plaintiffs did not prove openness/notoriety and ten years’ continuous use by clear and convincing evidence).
- The chancellor denied all injunctive relief and damages to plaintiffs and denied Oliver’s counterclaim and request for attorney’s fees. The appellate court affirmed in full.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of express drainage easement from plat/Drainage Plan | "Utility easements" and historical use should be construed as drainage easements permitting discharge through the PVC pipe | Plat labels are not unambiguous; recorded Drainage Plan does not contemplate the claimed flow; use cannot expand a grant beyond its terms | No express drainage easement; plaintiffs failed to prove it |
| Prescriptive drainage easement via long use of pipe | Longstanding use of pipe/previous metal pipe and maintenance show open, notorious, continuous use for prescriptive rights | Evidence shows intermittent clogging, lack of visibility, and insufficient continuous use; high clear-and-convincing standard not met | No prescriptive easement; chancellor’s factual findings affirmed |
| Covenant violation (obstructing easements) | Oliver’s blocking of pipe/culvert violated covenant requiring easements remain unobstructed | Plaintiffs lack easement rights to the disputed drainage; blocking did not violate covenant as to drainage rights | No actionable covenant violation because plaintiffs possess no drainage easement |
| Award of attorney’s fees to Oliver after preliminary injunction dissolved | Wrongfully enjoined so entitled to fees under rule for wrongful injunction | Plaintiffs sought damages too; injunction was ancillary to broader claims so fees inappropriate | Fees denied: injunction was not the primary relief sought |
Key Cases Cited
- Favre v. Jourdan River Estates, 148 So.3d 361 (Miss. 2014) (framework for determining existence and interpretation of express easements)
- Warren v. Derivaux, 996 So.2d 729 (Miss. 2008) (practical construction/acquiescence can clarify ambiguous easement grants)
- Thornhill v. Caroline Hunt Tr. Estate, 594 So.2d 1150 (Miss. 1992) (elements and burden to establish prescriptive easement/adverse possession)
- Rice Researchers, Inc. v. Hiter, 512 So.2d 1259 (Miss. 1987) (rule on awarding attorney’s fees when preliminary injunction is dissolved)
- Miss. High Sch. Activities Ass'n v. Hattiesburg High Sch., 178 So.3d 1208 (Miss. 2015) (injunctive relief must be predicated on an independent legal or equitable claim)