Scott M. Favre v. Jourdan River Estates, LLC
148 So. 3d 361
| Miss. | 2014Background
- Jourdan River Estates, LLC (JRE) owns a 269-acre tract reached by Nicola Road; neighboring parcels are owned by Scott & Cindy Favre and Jefferson & Constance Parker. Disputes arose over access when JRE proposed a large development.
- Cinque Bambini’s 1986–1989 conveyances created a 60-foot easement running ~1,200 feet toward JRE; JRE contends the first ~340 feet is a joint right-of-way and the remaining ~947 feet is an exclusive private easement to JRE.
- Two gates (the Darwood Point gate and the Heitzmann gate) and a 23-foot-long ‘‘bottleneck’’ where the road narrows to ~43.87 feet are central factual points. The county paved Nicola Road up to the Heitzmann gate (about 68 feet of the contested 340-foot segment).
- JRE sought declaratory relief as to the public/private status and width of the rights-of-way and an injunction requiring removal of gates and prohibiting harassment. The chancery court found the entire 340-foot segment was public (by implied dedication), JRE holds a separate 947-foot private easement, the full easement width is 60 feet (including the bottleneck), and issued an injunction removing gates and prohibiting harassment.
- The Favres and Hancock County appealed, challenging the bottleneck width ruling, scope/clarity of the injunction (and factual basis for enjoining all defendants), and whether the county accepted an implied dedication of the full 340-foot right-of-way.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Favres / County) | Defendant's Argument (JRE) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the bottleneck right‑of‑way is 60 feet or 43.87 feet wide | Favres: chain‑of‑title language and surveys support narrower width; trial ruling ambiguous and court should specify metes‑and‑bounds | JRE: deeds and Stenum Realignment Survey support 60‑ft easement; offered to stipulate 43.87 but stipulation not finalized | Court: Affirmed chancery court — easement is 60 feet at all points; Stenum survey controls; no manifest error |
| Whether injunctive relief (removal of gates; prohibition on harassment) was proper and sufficiently specific | Favres/Parkers: injunction overbroad/vague; no clear metes‑and‑bounds; no evidence they personally harassed JRE; estoppel and notice problems | JRE: record shows threats, shooting incidents, and obstruction; injunction describes prohibited acts and rests on Gunn factors | Court: Injunction upheld — chancery found Gunn factors satisfied; injunction sufficiently specific and not reversible error |
| Whether Hancock County accepted an implied dedication of the full 340‑foot right‑of‑way | County: if any acceptance, it was only of the paved portion up to Heitzmann gate; Skrmetta rule (partial acceptance = acceptance of whole) is dicta and bad policy; county procedures/statutes control | JRE: indemnity agreement, historic public use, county paving and surveys show offer and acceptance of full 340‑ft dedication | Court: Affirmed implied dedication of entire 340‑ft segment — relied on historic use, indemnity/agreement and precedent (Skrmetta/Kuljis); statutory road‑acceptance provisions do not preclude dedication |
Key Cases Cited
- Favre v. Hancock County Bd. of Supervisors, 52 So.3d 463 (Miss. Ct. App. 2011) (prior litigation and county acceptance/maintenance of Nicola Road discussed)
- Moore v. Kuljis, 207 So.2d 604 (Miss. 1968) (discussion of implied dedication and acceptance by public use)
- Skrmetta v. Moore, 30 So.2d 53 (Miss. 1947) (acceptance of part of a dedicated street can constitute acceptance of the whole)
- Huggins v. Wright, 774 So.2d 408 (Miss. 2000) (principles on methods of acquiring easements and importance of deed language)