Marilyn Kaye Downs and Gary Dudley v. Cecilia Lyles and John Burke

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/09/2009 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 2080599 M a r i l y n Kaye Downs and Gary Dudley v. C e c i l i a L y l e s and John Burke Appeal from Madison C i r c u i t Court (CV-05-1858) THOMAS, Judge. Cecilia Huntsville. Lyles and John Burke reside L y l e s h a s owned t h e r e s i d e n c e began r e s i d i n g t h e r e w i t h L y l e s i n 2002. lived i n the neighboring house when at a house i n s i n c e 1998; B u r k e M a r i l y n Kaye Downs s h e was a c h i l d ; h e r 2080599 m o t h e r , Thelma F r a n k l i n , s t i l l owned a n d r e s i d e d i n t h e h o u s e when, i n 2003, Downs moved i n w i t h because of transferred Franklin, Franklin's ownership advanced F r a n k l i n t o care age. of the property Franklin t o Downs. later Lyles, a n d Downs h a d a p o s i t i v e n e i g h b o r l y r e l a t i o n s h i p . In the f a l l o f 2003, Downs b e g a n d a t i n g G a r y D u d l e y . moved i n w i t h Downs a n d F r a n k l i n i n e i t h e r l a t e f a l l e a r l y 2004. According "junk" automobiles Lyles f o r her testified He 2003 o r t o L y l e s a n d B u r k e , D u d l e y b r o u g h t home a n d w o u l d work on them i n t h e b a c k y a r d . that she d i d not like a u t o m o b i l e s a n d t h a t she d i d n o t e n j o y b e i n g as much b e c a u s e o f t h e r e d u c t i o n looking at the i n her backyard i n her privacy. The f e n c e b e t w e e n t h e two p r o p e r t i e s was q u i t e o l d a n d was made o f c e d a r posts a n d w i r e , a n d i t a f f o r d e d no p r i v a c y t o e i t h e r b a c k y a r d . Lyles fence and Burke to give discussed putting them a d d i t i o n a l p r i v a c y up a wooden p r i v a c y i n the backyard. In O c t o b e r a n d November 2004, B u r k e t o o k down t h e o l d f e n c e a n d b e g a n p u t t i n g up a p r i v a c y f e n c e , According t h e same postholes. t o B u r k e , t h e o n l y comments made t o h i m b y Downs o r D u d l e y were p o s i t i v e ones r e g a r d i n g fence. using According t h e a p p e a r a n c e o f t h e new t o b o t h B u r k e a n d L y l e s , n e i t h e r Downs n o r 2 2080599 D u d l e y e v e r o b j e c t e d t o t h e t e a r i n g down o f t h e o l d w i r e f e n c e o r t h e e r e c t i o n o f t h e new p r i v a c y fence. I n t h e s p r i n g o f 2004, L y l e s was c o n s i d e r i n g additional p r o j e c t s i n h e r f r o n t y a r d , and, d u r i n g a n e i g h b o r l y v i s i t i n Lyles's yard, Downs told Lyles that she a n d D u d l e y were c o n s i d e r i n g a d d i n g a p o o l a n d a t w o - c a r g a r a g e t o t h e i r home. When L y l e s m e n t i o n e d t h i s t o B u r k e , t h e y b o t h became c o n c e r n e d about p o s s i b l e i s s u e s w i t h d r a i n a g e t h a t m i g h t be c a u s e d b y the proposed c o n s t r u c t i o n . B u r k e s a i d t h a t he c o n s u l t e d t h e c i t y o r d i n a n c e s b e c a u s e he was c o n c e r n e d a b o u t t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y D u d l e y was p l a n n i n g t o c o n s t r u c t i n r e l a t i o n t o the p r o p e r t y line. Burke said that he t o o k c o p i e s of the o r d i n a n c e s o v e r t o D u d l e y a n d t o l d D u d l e y t h a t he m i g h t want t o be aware o f t h e r e q u i r e m e n t s . According to Lyles, h a d a " m e l t d o w n " o v e r B u r k e ' s comments. he and Burke however, discussed Dudley Dudley Dudley admitted that where t h e d r i v e w a y w o u l d be p l a c e d ; d i d not t e s t i f y that he and Burke the neighbors h a d an argument o v e r t h e m a t t e r . The relationship deteriorate pecan tree; quickly. the tree between Issues grew arose over on 3 Lyles's began the branches property, to of a b u t some 2080599 b r a n c h e s hung o v e r t h e f e n c e a n d c a u s e d d e b r i s Downs's y a r d a n d o n t o t h e r o o f o f h e r h o u s e . sought p e r m i s s i o n give to f a l l into Downs a n d D u d l e y to trim the branches, but Lyles declined to her permission. Concerned over the p o s s i b i l i t y that Downs a n d D u d l e y m i g h t t r y t o t r i m t h e t r e e anyway, L y l e s a n d B u r k e i n s t a l l e d s e c u r i t y cameras t o m o n i t o r a c c e s s i n t o yard. Downs and Dudley were irritated their by the use o f the cameras, and t h e y e v e n t u a l l y b u i l t a h i g h e r p r i v a c y fence t h a t e x t e n d e d t o t h e i r d r i v e w a y t o b l o c k them f r o m v i e w o f a camera overlooking overlooked the fence property; as Lyles house. yard Lyles's home, which also Downs a n d D u d l e y were c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e o l d had been built by Downs's father on Downs's Downs s p e c i f i c a l l y a r g u e d t h a t t h a t f e n c e d i d n o t , contended, Lyles connect without contended house t o t h e c o r n e r the b a c k y a r d p r o p e r t y that o r i g i n a l wire that "butted that of the yard line. of fence between t h e c o r n e r the of t h e new d r i v e w a y o f Downs's home. By t h i s t i m e , wire side interruption fence to Lyles's extended from h e r a n d t h e n down t h e l e n g t h o f Downs c o n t e n d e d t h a t t h e l e n g t h a n d L y l e s ' s h o u s e was n o t p a r t o f f e n c e a n d i n s t e a d was c o n n e c t e d t o a p o s t up a g a i n s t " t h e o r i g i n a l 4 fence corner. 2080599 Before fence, home Downs and the s e c u r i t y caught Dudley built their camera o v e r l o o k i n g numerous images of Dudley extended the side privacy of clearing Lyles's debris of v a r i o u s n a t u r e o f f o f h i s d r i v e w a y by u s e o f a l e a f b l o w e r o r a garden h o s e ; the d e b r i s f e l l onto L y l e s ' s s i d e y a r d . point, D u d l e y c l e a n e d a s u b s t a n c e o f f h i s d r i v e w a y and placed shovels f u l l of A t one the driveway. then o f d i r t o v e r t h e s u b s t a n c e a l o n g t h e edge The camera a l s o e n t e r i n g the space between c a p t u r e d images of Dudley t h e two p r i v a c y f e n c e s on numerous o c c a s i o n s , a t l e a s t one t i m e w h i l e c a r r y i n g a b o t t l e w i t h an attached of sprayer that Round-Up, a weed k i l l e r . tearing a plastic door Burke identified as a container The b a c k y a r d camera c a u g h t someone o f f the area between the privacy f e n c e s , someone p e e r i n g t h r o u g h t h e f e n c e b u i l t b y B u r k e f o r a p e r i o d , and someone s p r a y i n g a l i q u i d s u b s t a n c e t h r o u g h t h a t fence. In December discover several 2004, L y l e s and inches of water Burke woke one standing morning to i n the b a c k y a r d . A c c o r d i n g t o Burke, the water remained i n the yard f o r three days. As a r e s u l t o f t h e f l o o d i n g , B u r k e t e s t i f i e d , w o r k u n d e r t h e h o u s e was filled 5 the duct w i t h w a t e r and t h e i n s u l a t i o n 2080599 on off the pipes u n d e r n e a t h t h e h o u s e became s a t u r a t e d of the pipes. replacing Burke testified that and f e l l he h a d s p e n t $100 t h e i n s u l a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , he e x p l a i n e d t h a t he a n d L y l e s d i d n o t have t h e money t o have t h e d u c t work r e p a i r e d o r replaced. Lyles and Burke contended that the flooding r e s u l t e d from t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y and a sidewalk i n Downs's b a c k y a r d a n d t h e p l a c e m e n t o f a d o o r , a t a i l g a t e , and other Dudley items along contended that the fence Burke's line b y Downs a n d D u d l e y ; construction of the privacy f e n c e h a d r e s u l t e d i n B u r k e ' s f o r m i n g a dam a l o n g the bottom of i n Lyles's the privacy fence, keeping the water confined backyard. L y l e s a n d B u r k e s u e d Downs a n d D u d l e y i n S e p t e m b e r 2005, a l l e g i n g t h r e e c l a i m s : t h a t Downs a n d D u d l e y h a d t r e s p a s s e d on the in property constructing excavated by disturbing the driveway, the s i t e their possession; that, D u d l e y a n d Downs h a d n e g l i g e n t l y and had v i o l a t e d the r i g h t s u p p o r t owed t o L y l e s a n d B u r k e ; a n d " s u g g e s t i n g " to lateral a boundary- l i n e d i s p u t e b a s e d on Downs a n d D u d l e y ' s c l a i m t h a t t h e f e n c e built Dudley b y B u r k e was l o c a t e d answered the on Downs's p r o p e r t y . complaint 6 and later Downs a n d asserted three 2080599 counterclaims: seclusion, old wire invasion of privacy a s s a u l t , and t r e s p a s s by intrusion upon b a s e d on t h e r e m o v a l o f t h e fence. A f t e r numerous c o n t i n u a n c e s a n d r e a s s i g n m e n t s o f t h e c a s e to other judges, t h e case November 3, 2008. was finally tried to a jury on A t t h e c l o s e o f L y l e s and Burke's case and a g a i n a t t h e c l o s e o f a l l t h e e v i d e n c e , D u d l e y a n d Downs moved f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on e a c h o f t h e c l a i m s complaint; the t r i a l court denied both motions. the c o u n t e r c l a i m s by the boundary l i n e line of the fence b u i l t by Burke. between t h e p r o p e r t i e s right of l a t e r a l and n e g l i g e n t of L y l e s trespass damages o f $1,100 e a c h , r e t u r n e d and Burke on excavation/violation of the The j u r y r e t u r n e d a n d B u r k e on t h e i r their were L y l e s and Burke's s u p p o r t a n d Downs a n d D u d l e y ' s of i n v a s i o n of p r i v a c y . was t h e f e n c e The f o l l o w i n g c l a i m s submitted t o the j u r y for i t s determination: of trespass dismissed The p a r t i e s f u r t h e r s t i p u l a t e d that claims In addition, a l l e g i n g a s s a u l t a n d t r e s p a s s were agreement o f t h e p a r t i e s . i n the counterclaim a v e r d i c t i n favor c l a i m a n d a w a r d e d them a v e r d i c t i n favor of Lyles negligent-excavation/violation-of-the- r i g h t - o f - l a t e r a l - s u p p o r t c l a i m a n d a w a r d e d them damages o f $50 7 2080599 each, and r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t i n favor of Lyles a n d B u r k e on Downs a n d D u d l e y ' s i n v a s i o n - o f - p r i v a c y c o u n t e r c l a i m . The j u r y was r e q u e s t e d t o d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r L y l e s o r Downs owned t h e privacy jury fence determined built that Lyles by Burke. owned t h a t The privacy court entered 2008. After matter o f l a w and, i n t h e a l t e r n a t i v e , their On a p p e a l , postjudgment motion trial f o r a new t r i a l three t h e damages issues. Secondly, Downs Downs on t h e j u r y c l a i m s h o u l d be awarded were b a s e d reversed on s p e c u l a t i o n and D u d l e y was appealed. argue t h a t t h e judgment e n t e r e d v e r d i c t on L y l e s a n d B u r k e ' s t r e s p a s s conjecture. The f o r a j u d g m e n t as a o f l a w , Downs a n d D u d l e y Downs a n d D u d l e y r a i s e Dudley f i r s t because fence. j u d g m e n t on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t on November 13, d e n i e d by o p e r a t i o n and specifically argue that and the e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o support Lyles negligent-excavation/violation-of- and Burke on t h e i r the-right-of-lateral-support claim a v e r d i c t i n favor of and t h a t the t r i a l court e r r e d i n d e n y i n g t h e i r p r e v e r d i c t and p o s t v e r d i c t motions f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w r e g a r d i n g that claim, because, they a s s e r t , the doctrine i s i n a p p l i c a b l e t o the circumstances of t h i s case. F i n a l l y , Downs a n d D u d l e y a r g u e t h a t L y l e s d i d 8 2080599 not that e s t a b l i s h adverse possession the j u r y could not of the have p r o p e r l y owned t h e p r i v a c y f e n c e b u i l t by old wire concluded fence that Lyles Burke. Standards of Review "A j u r y ' s v e r d i c t i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t and w i l l n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t i s p l a i n l y e r r o n e o u s o r manifestly unjust. Crown L i f e I n s u r a n c e Co. v. S m i t h , 657 So. 2d 821 ( A l a . 1 9 9 4 ) . I n a d d i t i o n , a j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon a j u r y v e r d i c t and s u s t a i n e d by t h e d e n i a l o f a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n f o r a new t r i a l will n o t be reversed unless i t is plainly and palpably wrong. N a t i o n a l Security Ins. Co. v. D o n a l d s o n , 664 So. 2d 871 ( A l a . 1995) . B e c a u s e t h e j u r y r e t u r n e d a v e r d i c t f o r [ L y l e s and B u r k e ] , any d i s p u t e d q u e s t i o n s o f f a c t must be r e s o l v e d i n t h e i r f a v o r , and we must presume t h a t t h e j u r y drew f r o m t h e f a c t s any r e a s o n a b l e inferences necessary to s u p p o r t i t s v e r d i c t . S t a t e Farm A u t o . I n s . Co. v. M o r r i s , 612 So. 2d 440, 443 ( A l a . 1 9 9 3 ) . I n s h o r t , i n r e v i e w i n g a j u d g m e n t b a s e d upon a j u r y v e r d i c t , t h i s C o u r t must r e v i e w t h e r e c o r d i n a l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e to the a p p e l l e e . L i b e r t y N a t i o n a l L i f e I n s . Co. v. M c A l l i s t e r , 675 So. 2d 1292 (Ala. 1995)." Dempsey v. Phelps, 700 So. 2d 1340, 1342 ( A l a . 1997). "When r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML [ j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w ] , t h i s C o u r t u s e s t h e same s t a n d a r d t h e t r i a l c o u r t u s e d i n i t i a l l y i n g r a n t i n g o r d e n y i n g a JML. Palm H a r b o r Homes, I n c . v. C r a w f o r d , 689 So. 2d 3 ( A l a . 1 9 9 7 ) . R e g a r d i n g q u e s t i o n s of f a c t , the u l t i m a t e q u e s t i o n i s whether t h e nonmovant has p r e s e n t e d s u f f i c i e n t e v i d e n c e t o a l l o w t h e c a s e o r t h e i s s u e t o be s u b m i t t e d t o t h e j u r y f o r a f a c t u a l r e s o l u t i o n . C a r t e r v. H e n d e r s o n , 598 So. 2d 1350 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . F o r a c t i o n s f i l e d a f t e r June 11, 1987, the nonmovant must present 9 and 2080599 'substantial evidence' i n order to withstand a m o t i o n f o r a JML. See § 12-21-12, A l a . Code 1975; West v. F o u n d e r s L i f e A s s u r a n c e Co. o f F l o r i d a , 54 7 So. 2d 870, 871 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . A r e v i e w i n g c o u r t must d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e p a r t y who b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o o f has produced s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e c r e a t i n g a f a c t u a l d i s p u t e r e q u i r i n g r e s o l u t i o n by t h e j u r y . C a r t e r , 598 So. 2d a t 1353. I n r e v i e w i n g a r u l i n g on a m o t i o n f o r a JML, t h i s C o u r t v i e w s t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e nonmovant a n d e n t e r t a i n s s u c h r e a s o n a b l e i n f e r e n c e s as t h e j u r y w o u l d have b e e n f r e e t o draw. M o t i o n I n d u s t r i e s , I n c . v. P a t e , 678 So. 2d 724 ( A l a . 1 9 9 6 ) . R e g a r d i n g a q u e s t i o n o f l a w , h o w e v e r , t h i s C o u r t i n d u l g e s no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s as t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s r u l i n g . R i c w i l , I n c . v. S.L. Pappas & Co., 599 So. 2d 1126 ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) . " D e l c h a m p s , I n c . v . B r y a n t , 738 So. 2d 824, 830-31 The Downs a n d D u d l e y jury verdict on L y l e s ( A l a . 1999) Trespass Claim argue t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on t h e and Burke's trespass claim s h o u l d be r e v e r s e d b e c a u s e t h e damages a s s e s s e d on t h a t c l a i m were b a s e d on s p e c u l a t i o n a n d c o n j e c t u r e . t h e i r b r i e f t h a t Dudley's have been prohibited Downs a n d D u d l e y mention i n e n t r y between t h e f e n c e s would n o t and t h a t Downs a n d D u d l e y had denied doing the acts complained of i n the t r e s p a s s claim. I f this i s an a r g u m e n t t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e was i n s u f f i c i e n t t o s u p p o r t a judgment underdeveloped on the trespass and unsupported 10 claim, the argument by any a u t h o r i t y . is R u l e 28, 2080599 Ala. R. App. P., r e q u i r e s an a p p e l l a n t t o " p r e s e n t 'with his clarity and w i t h o u t ambiguity'" his and t o " f u l l y issues express p o s i t i o n on t h e e n u m e r a t e d i s s u e s " i n t h e a r g u m e n t s e c t i o n of her b r i e f . B i s h o p v. R o b i n s o n , 516 So. 2d 723, 724 (Ala. Civ. App. 1987) ( q u o t i n g Thoman E n g ' r s , I n c . v. M c D o n a l d , 57 Ala. App. 287, 290, 328 So. 2d 293, 294 ( C i v . App. 1 9 7 6 ) ) ; s e e also 1042, White Sands G r o u p , 1058 L.L.C. v . PRS I I , L L C , 998 So. 2d ( A l a . 2008). ("Rule 28(a)(10) requires that arguments i n b r i e f s c o n t a i n d i s c u s s i o n s o f f a c t s and r e l e v a n t l e g a l a u t h o r i t i e s that support the party's p o s i t i o n . do n o t , t h e arguments are waived."). Thus, c o n s i d e r t h e a r g u m e n t , i f i t was i n t e n d e d evidence the i s insufficient trespass concerning claim we I f they decline to t o be made, t h a t t h e t o s u p p o r t t h e judgment e n t e r e d and will consider only the on argument damages. B a s e d on t h e e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d at t r i a l , i t appears t h a t t h e c l a i m o f t r e s p a s s a g a i n s t Downs a n d D u d l e y c o u l d have b e e n b a s e d on a c t u a l p h y s i c a l t r e s p a s s o n t o t h e p r o p e r t y b y D u d l e y , by t h e d i s t u r b i n g o f t h e p o s s e s s i o n projecting debris onto water onto the p r o p e r t y o f b o t h L y l e s and Burke by the property, that Lyles 11 and by t h e i n f l u x and Burke c l a i m of resulted 2080599 from actions taken Hooper-McDonald, (1974) ("A by I n c . , 293 trespass possession Downs may and Dudley. A l a . 56, be 59, See 300 committed by Rushing So. 2d 94, disturbing v. 96 the of the occupant, though the p e r s o n c o m m i t t i n g the t r e s p a s s does n o t a c t u a l l y go on t h e p r e m i s e s , as by throwing w a t e r o r m i s s i l e s on t h e l a n d , o r r e m o v i n g a p a r t i t i o n fence, t h o u g h t h e t r e s p a s s e r does n o t p l a c e h i s f o o t on t h e l a n d . " ) . Typically, in the damages f o r t r e s p a s s a r e b a s e d on " t h e d i f f e r e n c e reasonable market value of the property" a f t e r t h e i n j u r y c a u s e d by t h e t r e s p a s s . 423 So. 2d 868, 870 actual to damage trespass, damages the real for the trespass trespass. When t h e r e i s no resulting from i s entitled Johnson, and J o h n s o n v. M a r t i n , 1982). property t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y Compensation a ( A l a . C i v . App. before 423 So. to 2d the nominal at 870. f o r damage t o p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y o c c u r r i n g d u r i n g i s recoverable in a trespass action. Id. In a d d i t i o n , "a p l a i n t i f f c a n r e c o v e r f o r m e n t a l s u f f e r i n g w h i c h was t h e p r o x i m a t e c o n s e q u e n c e trespass was contumely." to committed I d . a t 871. a plaintiff in a of a t r e s p a s s to p r o p e r t y i f the under circumstances of insult and P u n i t i v e damages a r e a l s o a v a i l a b l e trespass a c t i o n , even 12 i f only nominal 2080599 damages a r e a w a r d e d , " i f t h e t r e s p a s s i s a t t e n d e d b y wantonness, recklessness or accompanied by c i r c u m s t a n c e s aggravation, 300 So. or gross 2d a t manner o f f r a u d and m a l i c e , negligence." Dudley that they argue that s u f f e r e d any trespass committed. Although did demonstrate any not insulting Rushing, or is oppression, 293 A l a . at 61, 98. Downs and establish an rudeness, we damage Lyles and damage as Burke failed a result of a g r e e t h a t L y l e s and to the real to any Burke property as a r e s u l t o f a t r e s p a s s , t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o n o m i n a l damages. J o h n s o n , 423 So. establishing at 2d a t 870. least I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e was some damage to Lyles's testimony and Burke's p e r s o n a l p r o p e r t y as a r e s u l t o f a t r e s p a s s , and t h o s e damages are recoverable i n a trespass action. Id. Burke testified t h a t he had r e p l a c e d i n s u l a t i o n u n d e r n e a t h t h e h o u s e a t a c o s t o f $100. He a l s o t e s t i f i e d t h a t he had r e p l a c e d the plastic b a r r i e r b e t w e e n t h e f e n c e s a t l e a s t 25 t i m e s and t h a t t h e d o o r c o s t "a c o u p l e o f d o l l a r s . " loss $34. of the plants i n the F i n a l l y , Burke t e s t i f i e d t h a t the garden Thus, B u r k e ' s t e s t i m o n y suffered approximately $184 amounted t o approximately i n d i c a t e d t h a t he and L y l e s i n damage t o p e r s o n a l 13 had property. 2080599 Downs a n d D u d l e y f u r t h e r a r g u e t h a t t h e e v i d e n c e d i d n o t c l e a r l y and c o n v i n c i n g l y e s t a b l i s h t h a t any a c t i o n s taken by Downs o r D u d l e y were m a l i c i o u s , as r e q u i r e d b y A l a . Code 1975, § 6-11-20(a) ( 2 ) , f o r t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f p u n i t i v e damages. evidence was s u c h that the jury could have concluded The that D u d l e y h a d e n t e r e d L y l e s ' s p r o p e r t y t o p u r p o s e f u l l y damage t h e g a r d e n on h e r p r o p e r t y . had Other evidence i n d i c a t e d t h a t a c t e d i n a r u d e a n d i n s u l t i n g manner d u r i n g t h o s e t i m e s he went i n and o u t o f t h e area cleaned and, between the fences a n d as he h i s d r i v e w a y , b e c a u s e he o f t e n made v u l g a r gestures a t l e a s t o n c e , made an o b s c e n e comment d i r e c t l y security camera. presented Thus, to the jury clear and c o n v i n c i n g punitive Burke agree that the evidence the "rudeness," "insulting accompanying Dudley's a c t i o n s evidence warranting was n o t the imposition of damages, were also was e v i d e n c e t o s u p p o r t t h e i m p o s i t i o n o f i.e., fixed "insult entitled c a u s e d by any t r e s p a s s . no cannot to the damages. Because t h e r e punitive we regarding manner," a n d " m a l i c e " is Dudley standard and contumely," t o damages f o r mental Lyles suffering J o h n s o n , 423 So. 2d a t 8 7 1 . for ascertaining 14 the and "'There amount of 2080599 compensatory damages distress. determination The that may sound d i s c r e t i o n of the the court 1326 for emotional much t o a w a r d i s l e f t jury, subject only to review f o r a c l e a r abuse o f t h a t d i s c r e t i o n . ' " U n i o n I n s . Co. (quoting awarded o f how the Life be v. First Crocker, 709 So. 2d C o m m e r c i a l Bank v. (Ala. 1997)). 1118, 1122 Spivey, 694 by Sec. (Ala. So. to 1997) 2d 1316, L y l e s and B u r k e b o t h c o m p l a i n e d t h a t t h e y had t a k e n t o w e a r i n g e a r p l u g s w h i l e o u t s i d e t h e i r home t e n d i n g to yard Burke work b e c a u s e also gardening, g a r d e n was of testified a pastime the that that constant comments f r o m he and Lyles had they had enjoyed, to Dudley. give up because their k i l l e d o f f t w i c e by a c t i o n s t a k e n by D u d l e y . They a l s o i n s t a l l e d s e c u r i t y cameras as a r e s u l t o f t h e i r concern o v e r D u d l e y and between the neighbors considered Downs t r e s p a s s i n g a f t e r t h e arose. mental Thus, s u f f e r i n g as the jury part of dispute could well i t s basis have for i t s damages a w a r d s . Downs and Dudley a l s o complain that the failure of the j u r y t o s p e c i f y what p o r t i o n o f t h e damages awards were made for compensatory or f o r p u n i t i v e damages i n d i c a t e s t h a t e n t i r e sums a w a r d e d were i n t e n d e d 15 t o be the c o m p e n s a t o r y damages. 2080599 However, Downs proposition intended Ala. and Dudley fail to cite t h a t we must assume t h a t t o be c o m p e n s a t o r y R. App. P., authority f o r the t h e e n t i r e a w a r d s were i n nature, see Rule 28(a) (10), a n d o u r supreme c o u r t h a s i n d i c a t e d t h a t , i n a case i n which t h e j u r y f a i l s t o s p e c i f y t h e amount o f e a c h t y p e o f damages, a t r i a l c o u r t , a n d b y i n f e r e n c e an a p p e l l a t e court, which p o r t i o n of the j u r y ' s v e r d i c t cannot designate was meant t o be c o m p e n s a t o r y meant to be Continental punitive damages damages. a n d w h i c h p o r t i o n was City Realty, C a s . Co., 623 So. 2d 1039, 1045 Furthermore, because I n c . v. ( A l a . 1993) . Downs a n d D u d l e y d i d n o t o b j e c t to the use o f t h e v e r d i c t form employed by t h e t r i a l c o u r t , w h i c h d i d not require t h e j u r y t o s p e c i f y t h e amount o f e a c h t y p e o f damages a w a r d e d , as r e q u i r e d b y A l a . Code 1975, § 6-11-1, a n y error based on r e v e r s a l because that ground cannot serve i t was n o t a r g u e d t o t h e t r i a l Green Tree A c c e p t a n c e , I n c . v. S t a n d r i d g e , (Ala. as a basis f o r court. See 565 So. 2d 38, 46 1990). In conclusion, because the j u r y determined that Dudley and Downs c o m m i t t e d t r e s p a s s a n d b e c a u s e t h e e v i d e n c e s u p p o r t s a c o n c l u s i o n t h a t a n y s u c h t r e s p a s s was c o m m i t t e d w i t h 16 malice, 2080599 rudeness, insult, and contumely, t h e j u r y was p e r m i t t e d to a w a r d n o m i n a l damages, damages f o r t h e d e s t r u c t i o n o f L y l e s ' s and Burke's punitive personal damages. property, Because mental-anguish damages, a n d the j u r y d i d not apportion i t s damages i n i t s v e r d i c t , we c a n n o t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e a w a r d o f c o m p e n s a t o r y damages e x c e e d s t h e amount o f a c t u a l damages proven by L y l e s and Burke. Reviewing the evidence i n the l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o L y l e s a n d B u r k e , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e jury's a s s e s s m e n t o f damages was s u p p o r t e d b y t h e and we d e c l i n e t o d i s t u r b t h e j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d evidence, on i t s v e r d i c t . Negligent-Excavation/Violation-of-the-Rightof-Lateral-Support Claim Downs a n d D u d l e y a l s o a p p e a l t h e j u r y ' s a w a r d o f $50 e a c h in damages to Lyles excavation/violation and Burke on t h e i r of the r i g h t claim of l a t e r a l of negligent support. They a r g u e t h a t t h e d o c t r i n e o f t h e r i g h t o f l a t e r a l s u p p o r t h a s no a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e f a c t s o f t h i s case and t h a t t h e t r i a l erred by f a i l i n g to grant their preverdict court and p o s t v e r d i c t m o t i o n s f o r a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on t h a t c l a i m . agree. 17 We 2080599 The right embodying of "[t]he lateral support principle[] is a that the common-law owner of doctrine land r i g h t t o l a t e r a l s u p p o r t from the a d j o i n i n g s o i l , has a and t h a t t h e a d j a c e n t p r o p r i e t o r c a n n o t remove t h e e a r t h t o s u c h an e x t e n t as to withdraw the natural support of h i s neighbor's without b e i n g l i a b l e f o r the i n j u r y . " Ala. of 45, 48 land (1863). in has boundary line, lateral So. state. right to of the land may not such 301 at 49. his that H a r d i n g v. B e t h e s d a 2d 299, Id. excavate h i s excavation support collapses. 551 the Moody v. M c C l e l l a n d , 39 The d o c t r i n e a p p l i e s o n l y t o t h e s u p p o r t i t s natural landowner soil, land rob up to a his h i s neighbor h i s neighbor's R e g ' l Cancer ( A l a . 1989). Although Treatment Thus, l i a b i l i t y of land Ctr., under the d o c t r i n e o c c u r s when an a d j o i n i n g owner e x c a v a t e s h i s p r o p e r t y so t h a t t h e l o s s o f t h e n a t u r a l s u p p o r t o f h i s n e i g h b o r ' s causes the neighbor's Nichols 319, 323 soil t o be v. Woodward I r o n Co., (1958) (quoting d i s t u r b e d or to f a l l 267 1 Am. A l a . 401, 405, Jur. Adjoining 103 land away. So. 2d Landowners § 25). No Dudley facts i n the performed any present case excavation 18 indicate that that resulted Downs in and the 2080599 deprivation According of lateral support t o the complaint, from Lyles's property. the basis f o r the negligent- excavation/violation-of-the-right-of-lateral-support asserted claim b y L y l e s a n d B u r k e was t h e f l o o d i n g e v e n t t h a t they c l a i m was c a u s e d b y t h e i n s t a l l a t i o n o f t h e d r i v e w a y b y Downs and Dudley. However, as n o t e d above, a c r o s s L y l e s ' s p r o p e r t y was a t r e s p a s s . did the i n f l u x of water The e v i d e n c e a t t r i a l not support a n e g l i g e n t - e x c a v a t i o n / v i o l a t i o n - o f - t h e - r i g h t -of-lateral-support claim, and the theory i n a p p l i c a b l e t o the f a c t s of t h i s case; thus, is legally the t r i a l court e r r e d i n d e n y i n g Downs a n d D u d l e y ' s p r e v e r d i c t a n d p o s t v e r d i c t m o t i o n s f o r j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w on t h a t claim. See Bryant, reverse the 738 So. 2d a t 8 3 0 - 3 1 . judgment, e n t e r e d We therefore on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t , awarding L y l e s and B u r k e e a c h $50 f o r n e g l i g e n t e x c a v a t i o n / v i o l a t i o n o f t h e r i g h t of l a t e r a l support. Boundary-Line Finally, determination Downs that and Lyles Dudley owned Claim assert the privacy B u r k e was n o t s u p p o r t e d b y t h e e v i d e n c e . on M a r d i s v . N i c h o l s , that the fence jury's built They a r g u e , relying 393 So. 2d 976 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , t h a t 19 by Lyles 2080599 d i d not e s t a b l i s h the elements of adverse possession entitle and her to a v e r d i c t i n her favor. had Downs " w o u l d n o t have a l i n e by adverse possession" b e c a u s e she n o t owned h e r h o u s e f o r 10 y e a r s a t t h e t i m e she f i l e d h e r action. They a l s o s t a t e i n t h e i r b r i e f t h a t " t h e r e t o r e l y on e x c l u s i v e p o s s e s s i o n the Specifically, Dudley argue i n t h e i r b r i e f t h a t L y l e s claim to the property so as t o alone i n order owner o f t h e f e n c e l i n e was." further arguments concerning i s no n e e d t o d e c i d e who Downs a n d D u d l e y make no the ownership of the fence itself. B e c a u s e t h e p a r t i e s s t i p u l a t e d t h a t t h e b o u n d a r y l i n e was the fence line, we adverse possession property line." cannot agree that Lyles had t o prove f o r 10 y e a r s t o e s t a b l i s h a c l a i m " t o t h e A s t i p u l a t i o n negates the requirement t h a t a p a r t y prove a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t or element of a c l a i m . Alabama Prof'l Health Consultants, Evans v. I n c . , 474 So. 2d 86, 88 ( A l a . 1985) ( q u o t i n g B l a c k ' s Law D i c t i o n a r y 1269 ( r e v . 5 t h e d . 1979), q u o t i n g (Fla. a i n t u r n A r r i n g t o n v. S t a t e , 233 So. 2d 634, 636 1970))(emphasis omitted) 'voluntary agreement between ("A s t i p u l a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as opposing d i s p o s i t i o n o f some r e l e v a n t p o i n t 20 counsel so as t o o b v i a t e concerning need f o r 2080599 proof or t o narrow [the] range of litigable issues.'"). Therefore, because they s t i p u l a t e d t o the e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f the b o u n d a r y l i n e b e t w e e n t h e p a r t i e s , Downs a n d D u d l e y c a n n o t argue adverse that Lyles possession presented insufficient of the fence line, evidence a n d we now of her affirm the j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d on t h e j u r y ' s v e r d i c t r e g a r d i n g t h e o w n e r s h i p of t h e p r i v a c y fence b u i l t by Burke. AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED IN PART; AND REMANDED. Thompson, P . J . , a n d P i t t m a n a n d B r y a n , Moore, J . , c o n c u r s J J . , concur. i n the r e s u l t , without 21 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.