Revocable Trust of Griffin v. Timberlands Holding Co. Atlantic, Inc.
328 Ga. App. 33
Ga. Ct. App.2014Background
- Griffin purchased a ~91-acre Wilcox County tract in Oct 2011; an east–west access road across the tract had been used for years by Rayonier (later Timberlands).
- After purchase Griffin gated the road and denied access; Rayonier/Timberlands sued asserting a prescriptive easement based on continuous use from ~2000 to mid‑2011.
- Timberlands moved for summary judgment; the superior court granted it after a non‑transcribed hearing; Griffin appealed.
- Timberlands produced affidavits claiming use of a twenty‑foot path or less and a later survey showing a 20‑foot width; evidence focused on width of use rather than physical roadway width during the prescriptive period.
- Griffin produced evidence (affidavits/deposition) that the road shifted around holes and was in poor repair, and argued the roadway exceeded 20 feet in places; questions existed about whether repairs put the owner on notice.
- The Court of Appeals reversed summary judgment, holding Timberlands failed to show essential prescriptive elements as a matter of law (roadway width and no shifting), though it found no error on the notice/repairs issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Timberlands) | Defendant's Argument (Griffin) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the roadway did not exceed statutory 20‑ft width | Use evidence shows the prescriptive way was 20 ft or less | Use evidence does not prove actual roadway width during prescriptive period | Reversed — Timberlands failed to prove roadway width (must show roadway itself, not just width of use) |
| Whether the prescriptive route shifted (changing path) | Use continued along same 20‑ft path without shifting | Road shifted to avoid deep holes; users widened route over time | Reversed — conflicting evidence of shifting created fact issue precluding summary judgment |
| Whether repairs kept the way “open and in repair” and put owner on notice | Affidavits show $2,200+ in repairs and maintenance over period | Road was washed out, in bad repair; use intermittent | Court: no error on notice — evidence of repairs could constitute notice; but unresolved factual issues on width/shift still defeat summary judgment |
| Appropriateness of summary judgment | Movant argues no genuine issue of material fact remains | Respondent argues material factual disputes exist on key elements | Reversed — genuine issues remain on roadway width and shifting; summary judgment improper |
Key Cases Cited
- Glatfelter v. Delta Air Lines, 253 Ga. App. 251 (summary judgment standard and de novo review)
- Yawn v. Norfolk Southern R. Co., 307 Ga. App. 849 (requirements to establish private way by prescription)
- Church v. York, 212 Ga. 135 (width of actual roadway controls prescriptive right)
- Warner v. Brown, 290 Ga. App. 510 (roadway exceeding statutory width defeats private‑way claim absent evidence it is narrower)
- Keng v. Franklin, 267 Ga. 472 (must show way did not exceed statutory width and use did not shift)
- Thompson v. McDougal, 248 Ga. App. 270 (shifting location of way defeats prescriptive title)
- Eileen B. White & Assocs., Inc. v. Gunnells, 263 Ga. 360 (requirement that prescriber keep way "open and in repair" and notice aspect of repairs)