John F. Hollingsworth et al. v. Bryan Richardson et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

rel: 05/27/2011 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 , A l a b a m a 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 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((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, 2010-2011 2090615 John F. H o l l i n g s w o r t h e t a l . v. Bryan Richardson e t a l . Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-238.80) PITTMAN, J u d g e . T h i s a p p e a l , t a k e n f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Lauderdale certain Circuit landowners subdivision that Court, who lies concerns own next the relative rights of properties in a residential t o Wilson Lake, a man-made 2090615 reservoir in northwest Alabama fed by the waters of the c a s e does not filings the Tennessee R i v e r . Although a copy appear i n the r e c o r d , of 1 the we pleadings may infer i n the from o t h e r r e c o r d t h a t i n 2008 J o h n F. H o l l i n g s w o r t h , Angela Hollingsworth, Richardson, and J o s e p h K. Lou in Hollingsworth, Hollingsworth sued Bryan F l o y d C h a m b e r l a i n , and J o y c e C h a m b e r l a i n , a l l e g i n g that the d e f e n d a n t s had the plaintiffs. assigned c a s e no. federal c o u r t , but The built a s t r u c t u r e on lands owned civil action, was initially CV-08-238.00, was was which apparently remanded t o t h e new c a s e number d e s i g n a t i o n ( n o . The C h a m b e r l a i n s ' homeowners' i n s u r a n c e trial removed t o by a c o u r t , where a C V - 0 8 - 2 3 8 . 8 0 ) was carrier assigned. thereafter We n o t e t h a t an a p p e n d i x t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' b r i e f c o n t a i n s d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h do n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d , t h a t p u r p o r t t o be p l e a d i n g s i n t h e c a s e . Those d o c u m e n t s h a v e n o t been c o n s i d e r e d i n d e c i d i n g t h i s a p p e a l . I t a p p e a r s t h a t we must a g a i n r e i t e r a t e t h a t t h i s c o u r t does n o t consider " a p p e n d i c e s " t o b r i e f s t h a t do n o t c o n t a i n e i t h e r m a t e r i a l t h a t a l s o a p p e a r s i n t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d (see S l e p i a n v. S l e p i a n , 355 So. 2d 714, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977)) o r s t a t u t o r y o r r e g u l a t o r y m a t e r i a l as t o w h i c h R u l e 2 8 ( h ) , A l a . R. App. P., a p p l i e s . R u l e 1 0 ( f ) , A l a . R. App. P., s e t s f o r t h t h e p r o p e r mechanism f o r s u p p l e m e n t i n g a r e c o r d i n a c i v i l a c t i o n , and t h a t r u l e s h o u l d be f o l l o w e d i f one s e e k s t o h a v e t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r m a t t e r t h a t has b e e n o m i t t e d f r o m t h e record. 1 2 2090615 sought permission, a n d was allowed, to intervene l i m i t e d purposes of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n discovery special findings i n t h e e v e n t o f an e n t r y f o r the and r e q u e s t i n g o f a judgment i n favor of the p l a i n t i f f s . The plaintiffs filed a motion f o r a summary judgment, s u p p o r t e d b y a number o f e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s p e r t a i n i n g t o the p a r t i e s ' chains the United States Tennessee of t i t l e Army Valley construction Corps of a p i e r affidavit given 2009, t h e t r i a l ("COE") ("TVA") authorizing and walkway, t h e summary-judgment January and t h e the i . e . , t h e improvements r e l y i n g p r i m a r i l y upon TVA p r o g r a m manager. court denied the p l a i n t i f f s ' 2010, t h e d e f e n d a n t s filed an In October summary-judgment m o t i o n a n d s e t t h e c a s e f o r a F e b r u a r y 2010 b e n c h In of The d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e motion, by a l o c a l approval of Engineers Authority that are p r i m a r i l y at issue. to and t h e r e g u l a t o r y trial. a motion for a summary j u d g m e n t , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a d f a i l e d t o show t h a t possession they held title t o , o r were o t h e r w i s e e n t i t l e d t o of, t h e l a n d l o c a t e d below a h i s t o r i c a l survey l i n e d e l i n e a t i n g an e l e v a t i o n o f 509.34 f e e t above mean s e a l e v e l ("the 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e " ) where t h e p i e r a n d w a l k w a y h a d 3 2090615 b e e n b u i l t ; among o t h e r e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s , t h e d e f e n d a n t s relied that upon t h e a f f i d a v i t they response to had p r e v i o u s l y i n opposition, the land and, of the l o c a l TVA p r o g r a m manager filed. plaintiffs The filed a a v e r r i n g that they held record t h e p i e r and walkway had been upon w h i c h title built i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that they held t i t l e pursuant t o the doctrine of accretion. The p l a i n t i f f s ' e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n in defendants' response included, to the among o t h e r t h i n g s , TVA manager c o n t a i n i n g that appearing manager that plaintiffs the regulations given submitted moved by to strike upon w h i c h defendants motion g i v e n by another testimony that d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y had been p r o g r a m manager that an a f f i d a v i t i n the a f f i d a v i t also summary-judgment had concerning by t h e TVA p r o g r a m the defendants. the a f f i d a v i t the defendants failed to procurement The o f t h e TVA relied, comply of from with testimony alleging federal of TVA employees. After strike a hearing, the t r i a l court and g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s ' 4 denied the motion summary-judgment to motion. 2090615 The plaintiffs their timely a p p e a l was Code 1975, Our § appealed from t r a n s f e r r e d to t h i s the summary court judgment; pursuant to 2 Ala. 12-2-7(6). standard of review of summary judgments is well settled: "A m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t t e s t s t h e s u f f i c i e n c y of the evidence. Such a m o t i o n i s t o be g r a n t e d when t h e t r i a l c o u r t d e t e r m i n e s t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e as t o any m a t e r i a l f a c t and t h a t t h e m o v i n g p a r t y i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r of law. The moving p a r t y b e a r s the burden of negating the existence of a genuine issue of material fact. F u r t h e r m o r e , when a m o t i o n f o r summary j u d g m e n t i s made and s u p p o r t e d as p r o v i d e d i n R u l e 56, [ A l a . R. C i v . P.,] t h e nonmovant may not rest upon mere a l l e g a t i o n s o r denials of his p l e a d i n g s , b u t must s e t f o r t h s p e c i f i c f a c t s s h o w i n g that there i s a genuine i s s u e f o r t r i a l . P r o o f by s u b s t a n t i a l evidence i s r e q u i r e d . " S i z e m o r e v. O w n e r - O p e r a t o r I n d e p . D r i v e r s A s s ' n , I n c . , 671 2d 674, The 675 ( A l a . C i v . App. record reveals that 1995) (citations the plaintiffs So. omitted). own Lot 2 of a p l a t t e d s u b d i v i s i o n known as L o c u s t D e l l ; R i c h a r d s o n owns L o t A l t h o u g h , as we have n o t e d , t h e C h a m b e r l a i n s ' i n s u r a n c e c a r r i e r was p e r m i t t e d t o i n t e r v e n e t o p r o t e c t i t s i n t e r e s t s as to q u e s t i o n s of insurance coverage t h a t might a r i s e i n the event of a judgment i n f a v o r of the p l a i n t i f f s , t h a t c o n d i t i o n was n e g a t e d by t h e e n t r y o f t h e summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r o f t h e d e f e n d a n t s ; t h u s , we deem t h a t summary j u d g m e n t t o be f i n a l u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 12-22-2, so as t o s u p p o r t appellate review. 2 5 2090615 1 o f t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n , and h i s l o t a d j o i n s t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' l o t on i t s n o r t h w e s t border. The 6 o f L o c u s t D e l l A d d i t i o n Two from Richardson's lot. Chamberlains own a part of Lot that i s l o c a t e d across a slough We surmise from diagrammatic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s o f t h e l o t s a p p e a r i n g i n t h e p a r t i e s ' summaryjudgment filings t h a t each of the roughly to the n o r t h of Wilson Lake; lots involved i s located t h a t each l o t i s bounded on t h e s i d e c l o s e s t t o W i l s o n L a k e by t h e 509.34 c o n t o u r line; and t h a t e a c h l o t i s l o c a t e d i n t h e e a s t h a l f o f t h e e a s t h a l f of S e c t i o n 2, County. Township 3 South, The actual s u b d i v i s i o n and The was plat or Range 9 West i n plats of the Lauderdale Locust i t s a d d i t i o n s do n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d . r e c o r d a l s o r e f l e c t s t h a t i n 1920, before Wilson c o n s t r u c t e d a c r o s s t h e T e n n e s s e e R i v e r so as t o W i l s o n Lake, Dell the U n i t e d S t a t e s procured Dam impound f l o o d easements from c e r t a i n owners o f l a n d l o c a t e d a l o n g t h e T e n n e s s e e R i v e r n e a r the former Muscle Shoals Canal. Among t h e landowners who g r a n t e d f l o o d e a s e m e n t s t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s a t t h a t t i m e were S.F. Cunningham, O l l i e Cunningham, S u s i e Cunningham, F l o r e n c e Cunningham, and H.L. instrument Cunningham; t h o s e l a n d o w n e r s e x e c u t e d whereby t h e y g r a n t e d 6 an to the U n i t e d S t a t e s " [ t ] h e 2090615 p e r p e t u a l r i g h t and easement t o p e r m a n e n t l y f l o o d ... l y i n g and b e i n g b e l o w t h e 505 an 1895 government s u r v e y of Section 3 land ... foot contour" l i n e i d e n t i f i e d i n i n the e a s t h a l f of the east half 2, T o w n s h i p 3 [ S o u t h ] , Range 9 West " l y i n g N o r t h the Muscle Shoals C a n a l " ( i . e . , the p r e e x i s t i n g channel of Tennessee R i v e r ) . plaintiffs tending lands to show t h a t had been subdivision owned by devolved the contour upon, former Cunningham and otherwise-unconveyed lands any or had 2008. via the subdivided of the been as flood the easement expressly conveyed a quitclaim east half deed her and of entire b e i n g below the" the east half on of behalf the evidence family Locust M a r i e Cunningham, i n t u r n , real property lying in the adduced platted grantors plaintiffs "[a]ll much o f further that and Cunningham by the The of Dell formerly had either to, Marie conveyed to interest in 509.34 Section foot 2, T o w n s h i p 3 S o u t h , Range 9 West. The States, record the COE also and reflects the that, TVA jointly regulate of the and United control T h e p a r t i e s do n o t d i s p u t e t h a t t h e 505 f o o t c o n t o u r l i n e i d e n t i f i e d i n t h e 1895 s u r v e y i s t h e same as t h e current 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e ; the parties agree that the actual e l e v a t i o n f i g u r e has been c o r r e c t e d s i n c e 1920. 3 7 2090615 c o n s t r u c t i o n a c t i v i t y along c e r t a i n n a v i g a b l e waterways o f t h e United States ( s u c h as t h e T e n n e s s e e R i v e r ) . See g e n e r a l l y 33 U.S.C. § 401 & 16 U.S.C. § 8 3 1 y - 1 . The TVA i n p a r t i c u l a r , as t h e t r a n s f e r e e u n d e r 16 U.S.C. § 8 3 1 f o f t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e United States i n t h e a r e a o f W i l s o n Dam, h a s a d o p t e d a number o f r e g u l a t i o n s , c o d i f i e d a t 18 C.F.R. P a r t 1304, p e r t a i n i n g t o procedures required, f o r obtaining agency's for construction p r o j e c t s along o r on " l a n d 1304.1 that subject (2010). approval, t h e Tennessee R i v e r t o TVA f l o w a g e e a s e m e n t s . " Among those as i s regulations 18 C.F.R. § i s one directly p e r t a i n i n g t o the p a r t i e s ' s i t u a t i o n , which s t a t e s i n p a r t : " I f t h e f a c i l i t y i s t o be b u i l t on p r i v a t e l a n d , t h e a p p l i c a n t must own t h e f e e i n t e r e s t i n t h e l a n d o r have an a d e q u a t e l e a s e h o l d o r easement i n t e r e s t i n t h e p r o p e r t y where t h e f a c i l i t y w i l l be l o c a t e d . TVA r e c o g n i z e s , h o w e v e r , t h a t i n some c a s e s p r i v a t e p r o p e r t y h a s b e e n s u b d i v i d e d i n a way t h a t l e f t an intervening strip of land between the upland b o u n d a r y o f a TVA f l o w a g e e a s e m e n t a n d t h e w a t e r s o f the r e s e r v o i r , o r d i d n o t convey t o t h e a d j o i n i n g landowner t h e l a n d u n d e r l y i n g t h e waters of t h e reservoir. I n some o f t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , t h e owner of t h e i n t e r v e n i n g s t r i p o r u n d e r l y i n g l a n d cannot be i d e n t i f i e d o r does n o t o b j e c t t o c o n s t r u c t i o n o f w a t e r - u s e f a c i l i t i e s by t h e a d j a c e n t l a n d o w n e r . I n t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , TVA may e x e r c i s e i t s d i s c r e t i o n t o p e r m i t t h e f a c i l i t y , p r o v i d e d t h e r e i s no o b j e c t i o n f r o m t h e f e e owner o f t h e i n t e r v e n i n g s t r i p o r underlying land. A TVA p e r m i t c o n v e y s no p r o p e r t y i n t e r e s t . The a p p l i c a n t i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r l o c a t i n g the proposed facility on q u a l i f y i n g l a n d and 8 2090615 e n s u r i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no o b j e c t i o n f r o m any owner of such l a n d . TVA may r e q u i r e the a p p l i c a n t to p r o v i d e a p p r o p r i a t e v e r i f i c a t i o n o f o w n e r s h i p and l a c k o f o b j e c t i o n , b u t TVA i s n o t r e s p o n s i b l e f o r resolving ownership questions. In case of a d i s p u t e , TVA may r e q u i r e p r i v a t e p a r t i e s r e q u e s t i n g TVA a c t i o n t o g r a n t o r r e v o k e a TVA p e r m i t t o o b t a i n a court order d e c l a r i n g r e s p e c t i v e land r i g h t s . " 18 C.F.R. § 1 3 0 4 . 2 ( a ) In January (2010) 2007, a p p l i c a t i o n t o t h e COE construct the and a w a l k w a y and from t h e i r (emphasis added). defendants t h e TVA submitted a joint for regulatory approval to a p i e r t h a t would, they s a i d , extend p r o p e r t i e s out diagram of the p r o p o s e d walkway i n d i c a t e d t h a t the d e f e n d a n t s i n t e n d e d to c o n s t r u c t i t so as t o e x t e n d f r o m a p o i n t j u s t t o t h e n o r t h of the boundary between the i n t o Wilson Lake. l o t owned by R i c h a r d s o n and owned by t h e p l a i n t i f f s t o a p o i n t 20 contour line marking the The upper f e e t west of the limit of the federal e a s e m e n t , where t h e w a l k w a y w o u l d p r o c e e d s o u t h p l a i n t i f f s ' l o t for a distance walkway r e a c h e d a 5 0 - f o o t the edge o f W i l s o n proposal the Lake. o f a l m o s t 75 p i e r t h a t was The COE and i n March 2007; however, t h e r e plaintiffs o r any members o f the n o t i f i e d of the permit a p p l i c a t i o n . 9 the l o t flood to front feet before t o be the 509.34 the constructed TVA i s no the at approved the i n d i c a t i o n that Cunningham f a m i l y were Further, t h e COE permit 2090615 issued to the defendants "obviate expressly t h e need t o o b t a i n o t h e r stated that i t d i d not ... a u t h o r i z a t i o n r e q u i r e d by l a w , " a n d t h e p e r m i t i s s u e d by t h e TVA t o t h e d e f e n d a n t s e x p r e s s l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t i t d i d " n o t g i v e any p r o p e r t y rights i n r e a l e s t a t e " and was i s s u e d " s u b j e c t t o any e x i s t i n g r i g h t s of third parties." The w a l k w a y and p i e r a c r o s s plans the then constructed the front of Lot 2 according set forth i n t h e i r permit a p p l i c a t i o n , contemporaneous o b j e c t i o n s refused and defendants t o remove i t despite the p l a i n t i f f s . from M a r i e I t i s undisputed that to the notwithstanding of the p l a i n t i f f s , requests the and have Cunningham the p i e r and w a l k w a y l a r g e l y l i e w i t h i n l a n d s s u b j e c t t o t h e f l o o d easement granted to the United States by members of the Cunningham f a m i l y i n 1920. The p l a i n t i f f s i n t h e i r b r i e f on a p p e a l c o n t e n d t h a t t h e y e s t a b l i s h e d the e x i s t e n c e of a genuine i s s u e of m a t e r i a l f a c t concerning construct line. whether the defendants had the legal right a w a l k w a y on l a n d l o c a t e d b e l o w t h e 509.34 The plaintiffs defendants d i d not ownership of property respond adequately by support contending their b e l o w t h e 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e 10 contour that claim to the to fee so as t o 2090615 give the p l a i n t i f f s and pier; the s t a n d i n g t o seek removal of the defendants assail the evidentiary materials s u b m i t t e d by t h e p l a i n t i f f s as a m o u n t i n g t o m e r e l y a s s e r t i o n s of We walkway conclusory ownership. disagree with the defendants' position. The p l a i n t i f f s ' evidence tends to i n d i c a t e , i n the aggregate, that members o f t h e C u n n i n g h a m f a m i l y c o n v e y e d a p e r m a n e n t flood easement t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s b e l o w t h e 509.34 c o n t o u r line i n 1920 as to t h e i r (see s u p r a n o t e 3) holdings i n the h a l f o f t h e e a s t h a l f o f S e c t i o n 2, T o w n s h i p 3 S o u t h , West in Lauderdale County, but that they east Range 9 did not s i m u l t a n e o u s l y r e l i n q u i s h a l l o f t h e i r r e s i d u a l r i g h t s as to t h e l a n d s u b j e c t t o t h a t easement. of Although the g r a n t o r s t h e f l o o d easement o r t h e i r s u c c e s s o r s i n t i t l e a p p e a r t o h a v e s e p a r a t e l y c o n v e y e d t h e l a n d s above t h e 509.34 c o n t o u r either in development indication bulk of or the i n the piecemeal, Locust Dell in connection subdivision, r e c o r d that the purchasers l o t s i n t h a t s u b d i v i s i o n were d e e d e d any 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e refers to the contour 11 line as with there of the is the no platted l a n d l y i n g below the (indeed, the Chamberlains' 509.34 line, deed e x p r e s s l y being a property 2090615 boundary). The intricately plaintiffs' detail summary-judgment the progression r i g h t s h e l d by t h e g r a n t o r s materials of a l l r e s i d u a l property o f t h e 1920 easement f r o m those g r a n t o r s t o M a r i e Cunningham, and t h e r e a f t e r t o t h e p l a i n t i f f s themselves. I n c o n t r a s t , t h e d e f e n d a n t s made no p r i m a f a c i e showing t h a t they h e l d lands upon w h i c h t h e y c o n s t r u c t e d We h a v e no q u a r r e l w i t h t h e TVA, as s u c c e s s o r authority and any f e e o r l e a s e h o l d instrument t h e w a l k w a y and p i e r . the defendants' assertion i n r i g h t to the United States, to regulate structures i n t e r e s t i n the below exercises and c o n t r o l a l l c o n s t r u c t i o n the 509.34 contour line. that activity The 1920 c o n v e y i n g t h e f l o o d easement a t i s s u e i n t h i s case e x p r e s s l y c o n f e r r e d upon t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s t h e power t o remove f r o m l a n d b e l o w t h e 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e "any o b s t r u c t i o n s and ... any o t h e r t h i n g w h i c h i n any way i n t e r f e r e s w i t h o r t e n d s to render i n a c c e s s i b l e , unsafe or unsanitary, any p a r t o f t h e slackwater or thereof." grantors pool created However, that by instrument "reserv[ed] the r i g h t may be done w i t h o u t [Wilson] Dam the also provided margin that the ... t o u s e s a i d l a n d s so f a r as i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h t h e easement and r i g h t s ... c o n v e y e d " t o t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s , a power t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t 12 2090615 w i t h t h e r i g h t s c u s t o m a r i l y r e t a i n e d by a s e r v i e n t t e n e m e n t i n an easement context. See generally Restatement (Third) of Property - Servitudes § 4.9 comment c. (2000) ("The person who h o l d s t h e l a n d b u r d e n e d by a s e r v i t u d e i s e n t i t l e d t o make a l l u s e s o f t h e l a n d t h a t a r e n o t p r o h i b i t e d by t h e s e r v i t u d e and t h a t do n o t i n t e r f e r e u n r e a s o n a b l y w i t h t h e u s e s a u t h o r i z e d the easement or p r o f i t . " ) ; So. 2d 2, subject 5-6 (Ala. accord 1999) B l a y l o c k v. C o n z e l m a n , (servient t o an easement so l o n g as use purpose and character of tenant may does not easement). There use no 751 land conflict is by with record e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g (a) t h a t t h a t r e s i d u a l r i g h t t o e n j o y the lands the subject defendants, "use" the better the f e d e r a l f l o o d easement i s h e l d by (b) t h a t t h e a p p a r e n t d e s i r e o f t h e p l a i n t i f f s land view easement, or TVA to below from Lot the 509.34 contour 2 conflicts with line the to secure federal (c) t h a t t h e r e g u l a t o r y c o n d u c t o f t h e COE to a flood or the pursuant t o the dominant r i g h t s e x p r e s s l y c o n f e r r e d i n the easement has by necessity extinguished residual ownership rights. At premised bottom, on the nothing defendants' more than 13 a argument vague appears notion of to be federal 2090615 s u p r e m a c y as navigable the to approval waters. defendants permitting not, and proposed not the that the held lands adjacent to permit obtained by provisions TVA to, on TVA governing permitting foreclose TVA process the does assertion along navigable waters one is holding concerned. an easement t h e s c o p e o f t h a t easement t o a c c o m p l i s h (see Chatham v. 2001)); thus, B l o u n t County, notwithstanding the 789 So. 2d opinion other 235, 241 expressed TVA's p r o g r a m manager, a d o m i n a n t t e n a n t s u c h as t h e would not be removal of empowered t o structures 509.34 c o n t o u r line enlarge interfering so as to vest i t s easement with authorizing navigation within the below TVA the the sole by permitee. For the the t r i a l of by TVA power t o a l l o w c o n s t r u c t i o n o f a s t r u c t u r e b e l o w t h a t l i n e a of r i g h t s o f i n t e r e s t e d t h i r d p a r t i e s as f a r as a m a t t e r of Alabama law, cannot enlarge purposes regulatory be construction I n d e e d , as (Ala. the underscore private property structures However, b o t h t h e and should of the r e a s o n s we have s t a t e d h e r e i n , we conclude c o u r t e r r e d i n e n t e r i n g a summary j u d g m e n t i n defendants. concerning the precise Material extent questions of 14 the of fact defendants' that favor persist rights to 2090615 construct the contour l i n e pier and walkway upon land below t h a t , f o r a l l t h a t appears i n the the 509.34 record as to the s t a t u s of the r e c o r d t i t l e t h e r e t o , i s not the d e f e n d a n t s ' to encroach decision, inured upon. We pretermit, c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f any to accretion. the 4 plaintiffs' as property benefit unnecessary to r i g h t s t h a t may via the have doctrine the s i l e n c e of the r e c o r d concerning subdivision to and i t s additions, and the p r e c i s e boundaries of concerning i n the defendants' chain of t i t l e reserve contour l i n e . their We REVERSED AND rights in remand t h e any to given t h e l o t s , as d e p i c t e d i n t h e p l a t o r p l a t s f o r t h e L o c u s t or of F u r t h e r , we d e c l i n e t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' i n v i t a t i o n d i r e c t the immediate e n t r y of a judgment i n t h e i r f a v o r grantors our lands whether intended below cause f o r f u r t h e r Dell the t o convey the 509.34 proceedings. REMANDED. We n o t e , h o w e v e r , t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s d i d n o t c o n t e n d i n t h i s court that that doctrine applied u n t i l t h e i r reply b r i e f was f i l e d ; s i m i l a r l y , t h e p l a i n t i f f s a s s e r t e d no e r r o r w i t h respect to the d e n i a l of t h e i r motion to s t r i k e except i n their reply brief. We f u r t h e r n o t e t h a t an a r g u m e n t may not p r o p e r l y be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e i n an a p p e l l a n t ' s r e p l y brief. See, e.g., S t e e l e v. R o s e n f e l d , L.L.C., 936 So. 2d 488, 493 ( A l a . 2 0 0 5 ) . 4 15 2090615 Thompson, P . J . , and Bryan, concur. 16 Thomas, and Moore, J J . ,

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.