Newcomb v. County of Carteret
207 N.C. App. 527
| N.C. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Marshallberg Harbor was constructed in the 1950s under River and Harbor Act authorization, with local landowners granting easements to Carteret County and the United States for harbor construction and access.
- Three key easements (1956) granted Carteret County broad rights to dredge, construct and maintain harbor facilities, later to be transferred to the United States, and to enter for construction and maintenance activities with the public landing concept in mind.
- Following harbor construction, the community and residents developed docks, walkways, and related infrastructure around the harbor, facilitating public and non-private use of the harbor area.
- Plaintiffs allege riparian rights extend to Marshallberg Harbor as an incident of ownership of property abutting the harbor, assertedly subject to County easements.
- The trial court granted partial summary judgment: riparian rights to the harbor subject to Carteret County easements; County rights to control and arbitrate permanent structures; and denied summary judgment on a public prescriptive easement for roadways, with a Rule 54(b) finality certification.
- The appellate court affirmed in part (riparian rights and County control) and dismissed the prescriptive easement appeal as interlocutory, granting certiorari to address the County-control issue on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do plaintiffs have riparian rights to Marshallberg Harbor? | Plaintiffs claim riparian rights attach to harbor waters as an incident of property ownership. | Joint Defendants argue riparian rights do not apply or are limited by easements. | Yes; plaintiffs have riparian rights, subject to County easements. |
| Does Carteret County have the right to control permanent structures in the harbor and arbitrate disputes? | County lacks authority beyond easements to regulate docks and disputes. | County possesses broad rights under 19 Oct 1956 easement to control and arbitrate structure-related matters. | County has right to control and arbitrate permanent structures in the harbor. |
| Is there a genuine issue of material fact on a public prescriptive easement over harbor roadways and paths? | Plaintiffs seek dismissal of prescriptive easement claims; defendants seek recognition. | Prescriptive rights claim should be considered; genuine facts exist for trial. | Summary judgment denial on prescriptive easement affirmed; appeal dismissed as interlocutory. |
Key Cases Cited
- Pine Knoll Ass'n v. Cardon, 126 N.C.App. 155, 484 S.E.2d 446 (N.C. App. 1997) (riparian rights attach to navigable water and adjacent land)
- Weeks v. N.C. Dep't. of Nat. Res. and Cmty. Dev., 97 N.C.App. 215, 388 S.E.2d 228 (N.C. App. 198.,) (distinguishes principal and appurtenant estates in riparian context)
- Bond v. Wool, 107 N.C. 126, 12 S.E. 281 (1890) (riparian rights include access and wharf rights)
- Gwathmey v. State of North Carolina, 342 N.C. 287, 464 S.E.2d 674 (1995) (navigability under public trust doctrine includes artificial waterways)
- State ex rel. Rohrer v. Credle, 322 N.C. 522, 369 S.E.2d 825 (1988) (public trust doctrine description of submerged lands)