Otha Steele and Harold E. Steele v. Hugh O'Neal, Lonnie Hill, and Anita Hill

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 08/26/2011 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal 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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100259 Otha S t e e l e and H a r o l d E. S t e e l e v. Hugh O'Neal, Lonnie H i l l , and A n i t a H i l l Appeal from Jackson C i r c u i t Court (CV-02-423) PER CURIAM. O t h a S t e e l e a n d H a r o l d E. S t e e l e from a judgment o f t h e J a c k s o n ("the S t e e l e s " ) Circuit Court 1 granting appeal Hugh H a r o l d S t e e l e i s t h e s o n o f O t h a S t e e l e and James S t e e l e . James S t e e l e was a named d e f e n d a n t i n t h e o r i g i n a l c o m p l a i n t ; he d i e d d u r i n g t h e p e n d e n c y o f t h e a c t i o n . 1 2100259 O'Neal, Lonnie prescription crosses Hill, over and A n i t a an unpaved Hill a private roadway the S t e e l e s ' property and ("the easement by that the Steeles denying roadway") the m o n e t a r y damages t h e y h a d r e q u e s t e d . The S t e e l e s and a p a r c e l of property t h e roadway c r o s s e s owns a p a r c e l his own only of property that means o f v e h i c u l a r means o f t h e roadway. adjoins a portion of that property. O'Neal abuts the S t e e l e s ' access to this property; property i s by The H i l l s own a p a r c e l o f p r o p e r t y O'Neal's p r o p e r t y ; access t h e i r property i n Jackson County, like O'Neal, the H i l l s can that only b y t h e roadway. On November 6 , 2 0 0 2 , O'Neal filed a complaint a l l e g i n g t h a t O t h a S t e e l e and h e r h u s b a n d , James S t e e l e , h a d i n t e r f e r e d with h i s u s e o f t h e roadway. restraining order O'Neal requested ("TRO"), a p r e l i m i n a r y a temporary i n j u n c t i o n , and a p e r m a n e n t i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g O t h a and James f r o m i n t e r f e r i n g with h i s use presented of the alternate injunctive r e l i e f : roadway. theories In to h i s complaint, support his O'Neal request for (1) t h a t t h e roadway was a p u b l i c r o a d and (2) t h a t he h a d a c q u i r e d a p r i v a t e easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n b y virtue o f h i s and h i s predecessors 2 in title's use of the 2100259 roadway trial f o r more t h a n court entered on November 13, 20 years. t h e TRO 2002. On November 6, and s e t t h e m a t t e r A f t e r the hearing, 2002, the f o r a hearing the t r i a l court e n t e r e d a p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n e n j o i n i n g O t h a and James, o r anyone a c t i n g on t h e i r b e h a l f , f r o m i n t e r f e r i n g w i t h O ' N e a l ' s use o f t h e roadway and a l l o w e d O'Neal t o e r e c t a g a t e the roadway. O'Neal was w i t h a key t o t h e g a t e . to required to provide The t r i a l u s e t h e roadway u n t i l January O t h a and court also allowed 1, across 2003, t o remove James O'Neal timber h a r v e s t e d on h i s p r o p e r t y ; h o w e v e r , O'Neal was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e p a i r i n g t h e roadway t o r e s t o r e i t t o t h e c o n d i t i o n i t was i n before Hill the timber was removed. On J a n u a r y 22, 2003, Lonnie moved t o i n t e r v e n e i n t h e a c t i o n , a s s e r t i n g t h a t he was an a d j o i n i n g l a n d o w n e r and t h a t he h a d an i n t e r e s t i n t h e u s e o f t h e roadway. O t h a and James answered O'Neal's c o m p l a i n t , of i t s m a t e r i a l a l l e g a t i o n s . filed named On May 5, 2003, O t h a and a c o u n t e r c l a i m a g a i n s t O'Neal and v a r i o u s defendants, claiming that denying a l l O'Neal and t r e s p a s s e d on t h e i r p r o p e r t y , h a d damaged t i m b e r , James fictitiously others had had caused damage t o t h e l a n d and r o a d w a y s b y f l o o d i n g and e r o s i o n , and 3 2100259 had d i m i n i s h e d the v a l u e James requested $1 of the S t e e l e s ' property. million in compensatory O t h a and and punitive damages. O'Neal a n s w e r e d t h e c o u n t e r c l a i m , d e n y i n g a l l o f i t s material allegations. Approximately James filed a one y e a r later, on May t h i r d - p a r t y complaint 18, 2004, O t h a and against Lonnie Hill's w i f e , A n i t a , and Mark H e n l e y a l l e g i n g t h a t O ' N e a l , t h e H i l l s , 2 and H e n l e y h a d t r e s p a s s e d on t h e i r p r o p e r t y ; h a d damaged t h e i r land, fences, timber, gate t h a t they again requested filed roadway, and b r i d g e ; and h a d removed a h a d e r e c t e d on t h e p r o p e r t y . O t h a and James c o m p e n s a t o r y and p u n i t i v e damages. an amended c o u n t e r c l a i m on May O'Neal, t h e H i l l s , 18, 2004, a l l e g i n g and H e n l e y h a d v i o l a t e d t h e t r i a l November 18, 2002, o r d e r b y c o n t i n u i n g t o t r e s p a s s property son, that court's on their and h a d c a u s e d f u r t h e r damage t o t h e p r o p e r t y . t h e same d a t e , On They a l s o Otha f i l e d J a n u a r y 7, filed a suggestion 2005, H a r o l d E. On o f d e a t h f o r James. S t e e l e , James and a m o t i o n t o i n t e r v e n e , a l l e g i n g t h a t he was owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y a c r o s s w h i c h r a n t h e roadway. The Otha's a cotrial H e n l e y was h i r e d b y t h e t i m b e r - h a r v e s t i n g company r e p a i r t h e roadway a f t e r i t s t i m b e r - h a r v e s t i n g o p e r a t i o n s O'Neal's p r o p e r t y ended. 2 4 to on 2100259 court granted answered O'Neal's allegations. i n her Harold's January court's January denying 11, 2005. a l l of Harold i t s material H a r o l d a l s o a d o p t e d t h e c l a i m s a s s e r t e d by and 15, third-party 2005, complaint. filed an the preliminary O'Neal Otha c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e S t e e l e s had v i o l a t e d amended c o m p l a i n t , trial on complaint, counterclaim On motion and the i n j u n c t i o n by Hills interfering with O ' N e a l ' s r i g h t t o use t h e roadway t o a c c e s s h i s p r o p e r t y ; H i l l s a s s e r t e d t h a t t h e S t e e l e s had a l s o i n t e r f e r e d w i t h use of the trial of roadway. O'Neal and the H i l l s requested c o u r t h o l d the S t e e l e s i n contempt f o r t h e i r the preliminary injunction. O'Neal and the the their that the violation Hills also f i l e d a motion s e e k i n g t o broaden the scope of the p r e l i m i n a r y i n j u n c t i o n to e x p l i c i t l y trial to the H i l l s and H a r o l d . c o u r t , over the S t e e l e s ' o b j e c t i o n , granted on F e b r u a r y 4, The The apply trial trial witnesses The t h a t motion 2005. o f t h e m a t t e r t o o k p l a c e on F e b r u a r y 28, court heard ore tenus evidence from numerous r e g a r d i n g t h e c h a r a c t e r and use o f t h e roadway. e v i d e n c e adduced at t r i a l t e n d e d t o show t h e f o l l o w i n g . 5 2006. The 2100259 The since roadway, at least public bridge which 1911. roadway school bus and and roadway w h i l e own unpaved, Witnesses has been testified in that existence in 1968, a on t h e main r o a d o v e r B i g Coon C r e e k washed o u t . While that bridge the is was i m p a s s a b l e , s i x or seven f a m i l i e s used i t s bridge to access their properties. A a m a i l - d e l i v e r y v e h i c l e a l s o t r a v e l e d on the b r i d g e any p r o p e r t y was out. Larry Glass, who the does not a c c e s s i b l e by t h e roadway, t e s t i f i e d t h a t i n t h e 1 9 7 0 s , he o f t e n u s e d t h e roadway t o t a k e h i s s o n s f i s h i n g . J.D. O'Neal and Phillips, who the H i l l s , formerly was owned t h e unable to attend property the trial o f i l l h e a l t h , and h i s d e p o s i t i o n t e s t i m o n y was evidence. Phillips s a i d t h a t i n 1972, t h a t i n c l u d e d the p a r c e l s now Phillips testified that he Steeles' property for property. He Phillips by because submitted i n t o purchased the the H i l l s used the roadway least 12 years to and land O'Neal. crossing the access his s a i d t h a t he a l s o u s e d t h e roadway t o h a u l from h i s p r o p e r t y roadway. at owned by he owned timber to the county road t h a t i n t e r s e c t s w i t h the a l s o s a i d t h a t he made i m p r o v e m e n t s t o the roadway. 6 2100259 Harold Steele said that h i s parents moved to their p r o p e r t y i n 1984, b u t i t h a d been i n t h e f a m i l y f o r d e c a d e s . Also i n 1984, the H i l l s from P h i l l i p s . purchased Phillips their took Lonnie p a r c e l of Hill property to the property way o f t h e roadway, c r o s s i n g t h e S t e e l e s ' p r o p e r t y . told Hill property. roadway that t h e roadway was Since the only 1984, t h e H i l l s t o access their c a b i n on t h e p r o p e r t y way Phillips t o access his have c o n t i n u o u s l y u s e d t h e property. They e v e n t u a l l y b u i l t a and u s e d t h e roadway t o b r i n g b u i l d i n g m a t e r i a l s t o t h e s i t e . I n 1984, L o n n i e H i l l s a i d , he a gate by a t t h e roadway's entrance from installed C o u n t y Road 53. He t e s t i f i e d t h a t , a t t h a t t i m e , he gave James S t e e l e a l o c k and key t o the gate. p u t up t h e g a t e , Harold t e s t i f i e d t h a t f r o m 1970 u n t i l t h e r e h a d been a c a b l e a c r o s s Hill t h e roadway's entrance. Larry parcel Cheatwood of property and Geraldine from P h i l l i p s , the harvesting access his a that O'Neal t e s t i f i e d t h a t he roadway to timber, and " r i g r a c i n g . " property Hill for provided w i t h a key t o t h e g a t e a t t h e r o a d w a y ' s e n t r a n c e . 7 purchased and O'Neal p u r c h a s e d p a r c e l f r o m t h e Cheatwoods i n 1993. used Cheatwood hunting, O'Neal O'Neal s a i d 2100259 t h a t t h e u t i l i t y company a l s o h a d a key t o t h e g a t e so t h a t i t could reach the H i l l s ' property to read the e l e c t r i c meter a t t h e H i l l s ' c a b i n e a c h month. I n 2002, O ' N e a l h i r e d Thompson & Harwood ("Thompson") t o h a r v e s t t h e t i m b e r on h i s p r o p e r t y . of timber, To f a c i l i t a t e t h e h a u l i n g Thompson c l e a r e d t h e roadway, added r o c k t o p a r t o f t h e roadway, and " s m o o t h e d i t o u t " t o make i t p a s s a b l e logging trucks. O t h a , James, roadway. the No one a t Thompson h a d any c o n v e r s a t i o n s or Harold before i m p r o v e m e n t s were When t h e t i m b e r began h a v i n g Thompson roadway. agreed made, t e s t i f i e d that the only harvesting workers O'Neal way to was by t h e roadway. began, James " r e c o n f i g u r e d " to allow harvesters making the improvements t o the the H i l l s t r o u b l e w i t h O t h a and James c o n c e r n i n g roadway. that with Todd L a n g s t o n , who w o r k e d f o r Thompson a t t h e t i m e a c c e s s O'Neal's p r o p e r t y the for i t s could testified the gate not that unlock he to stay c o u l d come and go. the l o c k i t to O'Neal a l s o so O'Neal t h e use o f on t h e g a t e and O t h a open and so access the and James had that the timber s a i d t h a t Thompson a g r e e d t o r e p a i r any damage t h a t m i g h t o c c u r on t h e r o a d w a y ' s bridge and t o g r a d e t h e roadway. 8 Despite the agreement, Otha 2100259 and James c o n t i n u e d t o a t t e m p t t o deny O ' N e a l , t h e H i l l s , Thompson's e m p l o y e e s a c c e s s t o t h e roadway. were p l a c e d on t h e roadway. with Otha T a c k s and and nails Langston described discussions and s a i d that O t h a and James w o u l d c o n f r o n t t h e w o r k e r s and t e l l them they could and James as " e x t r e m e l y n o t u s e t h e roadway. difficult" E v e n t u a l l y , O'Neal said, there were "some s h o t s f i r e d " f r o m t h e c o u n t y r o a d , and Thompson h a d its employees situation Even November efforts roadway. in 2005. roadway stop work at the O'Neal property until the issued in c o u l d be r e s o l v e d . after 2002, to the O t h a , James, prevent Lonnie He preliminary O'Neal and Harold the was continued Hills from in that he h i s property was attempting the occurred t o use when O t h a and a man l e a r n e d was J o h n H a l l m a n b l o c k e d h i s way. their using H i l l t e s t i f i e d t o an i n c i d e n t t h a t explained to reach and injunction he Hallman t o l d the later Hill t h e roadway was p r i v a t e and t h a t he " b e s t n o t go up i t . " The c o n f r o n t a t i o n r e s u l t e d i n a p h y s i c a l a l t e r c a t i o n between Hill and H a l l m a n . 9 2100259 More t h a n f o u r y e a r s the trial court entered a f t e r the trial, i t s judgment. 3 on J u l y 27, I n the judgment, t r i a l j u d g e s t a t e d t h a t she had " p h y s i c a l l y v i e w e d t h e property." The established the private a the interfering The trial the easement Steeles with by filed denied. The Steeles Our the H i l l s had and the a l l other successors Hills' use c l a i m s by trial, subsequently of appeal, judgment s h o u l d failure because, 3 delay the be to j o i n the Steeles reversed the that argue, to 10 the the The court Alabama appeal record to 1975. trial court's a p a r t y to the Jackson T h e r e i s no e x p l a n a t i o n i n t h e i n the e n t r y of the judgment. roadway. c a u s e remanded b a s e d J a c k s o n C o u n t y as Steeles from trial t r a n s f e r r e d the argue and title the which the to permanently the p a r t i e s . appealed supreme c o u r t a right in c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , A l a . Code On the their a m o t i o n f o r new Supreme C o u r t . this O'Neal p r e s c r i p t i o n over t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s , and and court denied Steeles subject had roadway t o a c c e s s enjoined the c o u r t d e t e r m i n e d t h a t O ' N e a l and t h e H i l l s roadway, d e t e r m i n e d t h a t O ' N e a l and use 2010, on action County was an f o r the lengthly 2100259 indispensable party to the action, which, they i n v o l v e d t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r t h e roadway was Generally, action seeking private. a county to determine the H i l l ' s whether a c o u l d u s e t h e roadway road road. to an i s public or 2d 959, 962 an a c t i o n t o d e t e r m i n e landlocked properties. a public indispensable party B o l e s v. A u t e r y , 554 So. T h i s , h o w e v e r , was the i s an assert, ( A l a . 1989). w h e t h e r O ' N e a l and t o access their otherwise A f t e r O t h a and James b e g a n p r e v e n t i n g a d j a c e n t p r o p e r t y owners f r o m u s i n g t h e roadway, O'Neal f i l e d h i s c o m p l a i n t and a s s e r t e d t h a t he was e n t i t l e d t o u s e the roadway f o r one o f two r e a s o n s ; s p e c i f i c a l l y , that he " b e l i e v e [ d ] t h a t t h e c o u n t y least a portion public road," may he stated have m a i n t a i n e d at of the road i n years p a s t , thus making i t a and, alternatively, that he had acquired a p r i v a t e easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e roadway b e c a u s e he and his p r e d e c e s s o r s i n t i t l e h a d u s e d t h e roadway o p e n l y f o r more t h a n 20 y e a r s . I n an amended c o m p l a i n t , t h e H i l l s a s s e r t i n g these a l l e g a t i o n s . established successors that O'Neal, had a p r i v a t e roadway a t i s s u e . joined i n The j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d i n t h e c a s e the Hills and their respective easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n over the I t c o n t a i n e d no f i n d i n g as t o w h e t h e r t h e 11 2100259 roadway i s a p u b l i c r o a d ; t h u s , t h e j u d g m e n t i s n o t b i n d i n g on the county. I n M e l t o n v . H a r b o r P o i n t e , L L C , 57 So. 3d 695, 700 ( A l a . 2010), o u r supreme c o u r t 19(a), A l a . R. discussed C i v . P., w h i c h the application pertains of Rule to the j o i n d e r of i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s when j o i n d e r i s f e a s i b l e : " T h i s C o u r t s t a t e d i n J.R. M c C l e n n e y & Son, I n c . v. R e i m e r , 435 So. 2d 50, 52 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) , t h a t ' " ' [ i ] n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t i e s ' a r e p e r s o n s who n o t o n l y have an i n t e r e s t i n t h e c o n t r o v e r s y b u t an i n t e r e s t o f s u c h a n a t u r e t h a t a f i n a l d e c r e e c a n n o t be made without either a f f e c t i n g that i n t e r e s t or l e a v i n g the c o n t r o v e r s y i n such a c o n d i t i o n t h a t i t s f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n may be w h o l l y i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h e q u i t y and g o o d c o n s c i e n c e . " ' ( Q u o t i n g 1 Champ L y o n s , A l a b a m a P r a c t i c e , R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e , a t 389 (1973).) The C o u r t f u r t h e r s t a t e d i n R e i m e r : " ' T h e r e i s no p r e s c r i b e d f o r m u l a t o be mechanically a p p l i e d i n every case t o determine whether a party is an indispensable p a r t y or merely a proper or n e c e s s a r y one. T h i s i s a q u e s t i o n t o be decided i n the context of the p a r t i c u l a r case. P r o v i d e n t Tradesmens Bank & T r u s t Co. v . P a t t e r s o n , 390 U.S. 102, 88 S . C t . 733, 19 L. E d . 2d 936 ( 1 9 6 8 ) . The i s s u e i s one t o be d e c i d e d b y a p p l y i n g e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s and, under t h e c i r c u m s t a n c e s o f t h i s case, i t w o u l d be i n e q u i t a b l e t o vacate t h i s j u d g m e n t on m o t i o n o f t h e defendant, which has so b l a t a n t l y i g n o r e d the r u l e s under w h i c h i t s mortgagee bank c o u l d have so e a s i l y b e e n made a p a r t y . ' "435 So. 2d a t 52 ( e m p h a s i s 12 added)." 2100259 Our supreme c o u r t a l s o h a s s t a t e d : " R u l e 19, A l a . R. C i v . P., p r o v i d e s f o r j o i n d e r , needed for just adjudication. I t s purposes include the promotion of judicial e f f i c i e n c y and t h e f i n a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f l i t i g a t i o n by i n c l u d i n g a l l p a r t i e s d i r e c t l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e controversy. Where t h e p a r t i e s b e f o r e t h e c o u r t adequately represent the absent p a r t i e s ' i n t e r e s t s and t h e a b s e n t p a r t i e s c o u l d e a s i l y i n t e r v e n e s h o u l d they fear inadequate r e p r e s e n t a t i o n , no reason exists why the t r i a l court could not grant meaningful r e l i e f to the p a r t i e s before the court. A l s o , j o i n d e r of absent p a r t i e s i s not a b s o l u t e l y n e c e s s a r y where d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o n t r o v e r s y w i l l not r e s u l t i n a l o s s t o the absent p a r t i e s ' interest o r where t h e a c t i o n does n o t s e e k a j u d g m e n t a g a i n s t them." B y r d Cos. v. Smith, omitted; 3d emphasis added). 126, 132 Bruce, 591 So. 2d 844, 846 ( A l a . 1991) See a l s o G a t l i n v. J o i n e r , 31 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ; a n d Morgan 266 A l a . 494, 497-98, 97 So. 2d 805, 808 Moreover, t h i s (citations Plan Co. v . (1957). c o u r t has h e l d : "The c o u r t , when d e t e r m i n i n g p a r t i e s u n d e r R u l e 19, s h o u l d p l a c e e m p h a s i s on t h e p r a c t i c a l a n d p r a g m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s o f each case. P r o v i d e n t Tradesmen Bank & T r u s t v . P a t t e r s o n , 390 U.S. 102, 88 S. C t . 733, 19 L. E d . 2d 936 ( 1 9 6 8 ) ; L o p e z v . M a r t i n L u t h e r K i n g , J r . H o s p i t a l , 97 F.R.D. 24 (C.D. C a l . 1 9 8 3 ) . A d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r an i n t e r e s t u n d e r R u l e 1 9 ( a ) ( 2 ) e x i s t s s h o u l d be v i e w e d f r o m a p r a c t i c a l s t a n d p o i n t and s h o u l d t u r n on t h e p a r t i c u l a r s o f t h e case. Lopez, supra." 13 2100259 Felder v. S t a t e , 515 So. 2d 17, 18 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1987) (emphasis added). "A d e f e n d a n t ' s d e l a y a n d i t s s e l f - s e r v i n g p u r p o s e for r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e have a l s o b e e n h e l d t o be proper considerations i n determining whether a judgment i s p r o p e r i n t h e absence o f a p a r t i c u l a r party. J.R. M c C l e n n e y & Son, I n c . v . R e i m e r , 435 So. 2d 50, 52 ( A l a . 1 9 8 3 ) . See a l s o , G e e r B r o s . , I n c . v. W a l k e r , 416 So. 2d 1045, 1050 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1982)." B y r d C o s . , 591 So. 2d a t 846. I n d i s c u s s i n g R u l e 1 9 ( b ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., w h i c h a p p l i e s when j o i n d e r i s n o t f e a s i b l e , after a t r i a l one t r e a t i s e has s t a t e d that, on t h e m e r i t s , " t h e p r a g m a t i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s s e t f o r t h i n A l a . R. Civ. P. R u l e 1 9 ( b ) as t o w h e t h e r t o a b o r t t h e l a w s u i t 'weigh h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l c o u r t o r m o d i f y i n g i t to p r o t e c t t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e a b s e n t e e and a g a i n s t d i s m i s s a l u n l e s s t h e r e had been r e a l p r e j u d i c e t o those not before the court.' 7 Wright, e t a l . , Federal P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l (2d e d . ) , C i v i l 2d § 1609." 1 Champ L y o n s , J r . , a n d A l l y W. H o w e l l , Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e A n n o t a t e d a t 566 ( 4 t h e d . 2 0 0 4 ) . has is Another treatise s t a t e d that, "[b]ecause the d o c t r i n e of i n d i s p e n s a b i l i t y equitable nonjoinder i n character, when special the court will circumstances 14 not dismiss f o r would make i t 2100259 i n e q u i t a b l e t o do s o . " 7 C h a r l e s A. W r i g h t e t a l . , 7 F e d e r a l P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 1611 a t 169 (3d ed. 2001). In a case i n v o l v i n g t h e i s s u e o f whether t h e f a i l u r e t o j o i n an a l l e g e d l y " i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y " r e q u i r e d r e v e r s a l , t h e Supreme C o u r t trial court, of North echoing Dakota affirmed t h e judgment o f t h e the r a t i o n a l e expressed above f r o m L y o n s a n d H o w e l l , i n t h e quote Alabama R u l e s o f C i v i l Procedure Annotated: "'The purpose o f t h e compulsory j o i n d e r r u l e i s t o p r o t e c t an a b s e n t p a r t y from p r e j u d i c e , t o p r o t e c t p a r t i e s from harassment by s u c c e s s i v e suits, and t o p r o t e c t t h e c o u r t s f r o m b e i n g i m p o s e d upon by multiple litigation. Cudworth v. C u d w o r t h , 312 N.W.2d 331, 333 (N.D. 1 9 8 1 ) . Although the failure to join an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y may be r a i s e d f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e on a p p e a l , " [ o ] n c e t h e t r i a l h a s been concluded, the pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n R u l e 19 w e i g h h e a v i l y i n f a v o r o f p r e s e r v i n g t h e judgment o f t h e trial court ... a n d a g a i n s t dismissal u n l e s s t h e r e has been r e a l p r e j u d i c e t o those not before the court." Cudworth v. Cudworth, supra, 312 N.W.2d a t 334. D i s m i s s a l o f an a c t i o n f o r n o n j o i n d e r o f a p a r t y i s an e x t r e m e remedy w h i c h s h o u l d o n l y be g r a n t e d where a p a r t y i s t r u l y "indispensable." Kouba v . G r e a t P l a i n s P e l l e t i n g , I n c . , 372 N.W.2d 884, 887 (N.D. 1985).' "Erdmann 1989). " v. Thomas, 446 N.W.2d 15 2 4 5 , 249 (N.D. 2100259 In re E s t a t e o f Murphy, 554 N.W.2d 432, 438 (N.D. 1 9 9 6 ) . C o u r t s have b e e n s t r u g g l i n g f o r d e c a d e s w i t h t h e i s s u e o f whether t o reverse of a party entry that a j u d g m e n t t h a t does n o t a f f e c t t h e r i g h t s has been o f t h e judgment. judgment that "indispensable" a f t e r the In d i s s e n t i n g t o the r e v e r s a l of a confirmed "indispensable" deemed party, the interest of the nonjoined Judge H u t c h e s o n o f t h e U n i t e d States C o u r t o f A p p e a l s f o r t h e F i f t h C i r c u i t n o t e d t h a t " i t seems t o me a vain thing to reverse f o r t h e absence j u d g m e n t whose r i g h t s i t does n o t a d v e r s e l y v. Texas 1946) Pac. C o a l Lyons Annotated, and H o w e l l , court's interest Alabama 341 So. 2d 118 judgment appeared of the absent p a r t y , while an affirmance p e r h a p s have b e t t e r s e r v e d preventing al., 157 F.2d 216, 224 Calcote (5th C i r . Rules of C i v i l Procedure i t i s n o t e d t h a t t h e r e v e r s a l o f t h e judgment i n D a v i s v. B u r n e t t e , trial affect." a (Hutcheson, J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . In trial & O i l Co., of p a r t i e s imposition Federal ( A l a . 1976), i n which to be "apparently would favorable required end t h e m a t t e r the to the a second and would a purpose of compulsory j o i n d e r of on t h e c o u r t s . Accord, P r a c t i c e and P r o c e d u r e : C i v i l 16 7 Wright, e t (2d e d . ) , C i v i l 2d 2100259 § 1609." 1 L y o n s and H o w e l l , A l a b a m a R u l e s o f C i v i l P r o c e d u r e A n n o t a t e d a t 566. The r e c o r d i n t h i s c a s e i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e S t e e l e s b o t h a c o u n t e r c l a i m and a t h i r d - p a r t y c o m p l a i n t and d i d not indicates roadway never join that across given the county the Steeles their O'Neal as do property. and the a party. not want Hills i n this action The record anyone Otha t e s t i f i e d permission filed using also the t h a t she h a d to use the roadway. During cross-examination, roadway. When t h e a t t o r n e y q u e s t i o n i n g h e r r e p l i e d t h a t t h a t was "I the question t h e y were i n c o u r t t o d e t e r m i n e , O t h a know whose r o a d and t h e a t t o r n e y she s t a t e d t h a t i t was h e r i tis." After further questioning, representing O'Neal and t h e H i l l s "A.: road No, i t d o e s n ' t n e e d any work on i t . "Q.: The r o a d d o e s n ' t n e e d any work on i t ? "A.: No, s i r . We're n o t g o i n g t o use i t anymore. I n e e d t h e f i e l d m y p r o p e r t y more t h a n I need t h e road. "Q.: I f Judge H o l t s a y s t h a t Mr. O'Neal and Mr. H i l l have t h e r i g h t t o u s e t h a t r o a d , a r e you g o i n g t o l e t them u s e t h e r o a d ? 17 Otha had the following discussion: "Q. [By t h e p l a i n t i f f s ' a t t o r n e y ] : So t h e needs some work on i t , d o e s n ' t i t ? said, 2100259 "A.: "Q.: No. No, "A.: "Q.: you're not? No. Y o u ' r e n o t g o i n g t o do i t ? "A.: No. t h e p u b l i c -- I can't. I c a n ' t open my "Q.: So to -¬ "A.: l a n d up t o t h e h u n t i n g community. "Q.: order? So y o u ' r e "A.: I'll "Q.: But not going t o f o l l o w the have t o a p p e a l i t . i f you appeal i t and t h a t t h e y have a r i g h t t o use "A.: Judge's that Court t h e r o a d , you says -¬ W e l l , w e ' l l go somewhere e l s e and appeal it. "Q.: "A.: it You're not g o i n g t o l e t these gentlemen I have t o have my up -"Q.: land. And I c a n ' t open You've s e e n what t h e y done a l r e a d y . Y e s , ma'am, I h a v e ; t h e r o a d l o o k s good. "A.: Y e s . B u t my f a r m l o o k s b a d . the farm, I don't need the r o a d . " T h i s m a t t e r has The -¬ S t e e l e s had been i n l i t i g a t i o n ample opportunity to And s i n c e November 2002. join the p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n , and t h e y f a i l e d t o do s o . 18 I need county as a F u r t h e r , the 2100259 r e c o r d c l e a r l y demonstrates t h a t the S t e e l e s do the I t appears t h a t the r o a d w a y t o be declared S t e e l e s may r a i s i n g t h e i s s u e o f t h e c o u n t y ' s j o i n d e r as be a p u b l i c road. n o t want d e l a y i n g t a c t i c and d o i n g so s i n g l y a second o p p o r t u n i t y f o r the purpose of to t r y t h e i r case. a gaining At t h i s stage i n the l i t i g a t i o n , to r e v e r s e the judgment--at the S t e e l e s ' request-¬ on party the ground t h a t the county i s an indispensable what i s c l e a r l y a p r i v a t e d i s p u t e , t h i s c o u r t w o u l d be the Steeles the that giving apple. O'Neal and blocking their The trial having road; second o p p o r t u n i t y , in the Hills merely wanted the access to t h e i r court granted them the relief the been shown. requested responsibilities The on the l a t e r action regarding Accordingly, pragmatic reasons we relief t h a t the was allowed by a public county imposes Rule no i t does n o t duties 19, for the A l a . R. or foreclose roadway i s a p u b l i c that, 19 roadway was without having and whether the conclude roadway. requested obtained stop without judgment county, to at No p r e j u d i c e t o t h e t o i n c l u d e t h e c o u n t y as a p a r t y . has Steeles p r o p e r t i e s v i a the t o make a d e t e r m i n a t i o n thus, i . e . , a second b i t e equitable Civ. P., a road. and the 2100259 trial c o u r t d i d n o t e r r i n r e f u s i n g t o add Jackson County t o t h i s a c t i o n as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y . The Steeles determining that contend O'Neal that the and the s u b s t a n t i a l evidence demonstrating heard ore tenus s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s as evidence Hills court in erred had t h a t t h e y had a p r i v a t e e a s e m e n t by p r e s c r i p t i o n . court trial presented established As m e n t i o n e d , this case; the thus, follows. "Because the trial court heard ore tenus evidence d u r i n g the bench t r i a l , the ore tenus s t a n d a r d of review a p p l i e s . Our o r e t e n u s s t a n d a r d of r e v i e w i s w e l l s e t t l e d . '"When a j u d g e i n a n o n j u r y case h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y , a judgment based on f i n d i n g s o f f a c t b a s e d on t h a t t e s t i m o n y w i l l be 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 on a p p e a l e x c e p t f o r a p l a i n and p a l p a b l e e r r o r . " ' S m i t h v. Muchia, 854 So. 2d 85, 92 ( A l a . 2003) ( q u o t i n g A l l s t a t e I n s . Co. v. S k e l t o n , 675 So. 2d 377, 379 (Ala. 1996)). "'"The o r e t e n u s r u l e i s g r o u n d e d upon t h e p r i n c i p l e t h a t when t h e t r i a l c o u r t h e a r s o r a l t e s t i m o n y i t has an o p p o r t u n i t y t o e v a l u a t e t h e demeanor and c r e d i b i l i t y o f witnesses." H a l l v. Mazzone , 486 So. 2d 408, 410 ( A l a . 1 9 8 6 ) . The r u l e a p p l i e s t o " d i s p u t e d i s s u e s of f a c t , " whether the dispute i s based entirely upon oral t e s t i m o n y o r upon a c o m b i n a t i o n o f o r a l t e s t i m o n y and d o c u m e n t a r y e v i d e n c e . Born v. C l a r k , 662 So. 2d 669, 672 ( A l a . 1995) . The ore tenus standard of review, s u c c i n c t l y s t a t e d , i s as f o l l o w s : 20 in trial our 2100259 " ' " [ W ] h e r e t h e e v i d e n c e has b e e n [presented] ore tenus, a presumption of correctness attends the trial court's c o n c l u s i o n on i s s u e s o f f a c t , and t h i s Court w i l l not d i s t u r b the t r i a l court's conclusion unless it is clearly erroneous and a g a i n s t the g r e a t weight of the evidence, but will affirm the j u d g m e n t i f , u n d e r any r e a s o n a b l e aspect, i t is supported by c r e d i b l e evidence."' "Reed v. B o a r d o f T r s . f o r A l a b a m a S t a t e U n i v . , 77 8 So. 2d 791, 795 ( A l a . 2000) ( q u o t i n g R a i d t v. C r a n e , 342 So. 2d 358, 360 (Ala. 1977)). However, ' t h a t p r e s u m p t i o n [ o f c o r r e c t n e s s ] has no a p p l i c a t i o n when t h e t r i a l c o u r t i s shown t o have i m p r o p e r l y a p p l i e d the law t o the f a c t s . ' Ex p a r t e B o a r d o f Z o n i n g A d j u s t m e n t o f M o b i l e , 636 So. 2d 415, 417 (Ala. 1994)." Kennedy v. B o l e s I n v s . , I n c . , 53 So. 3d 60, 67-68 ( A l a . 2 0 1 0 ) . "[T]he ore tenus presumption i s f u r t h e r s t r e n g t h e n e d i n a case i n v o l v i n g a d i s p u t e o v e r r e a l p r o p e r t y , where t h e t r i a l judge views the Park, 551 So. land i n question." 918, 920 Hereford ( A l a . 1989). v. G i n g o - M o r g a n "'[W]here a t r i a l a v i e w o f t h e s u b j e c t p r o p e r t y t h e r e must be of e r r o r before So. 2d 1072, S a l s m a n , 435 r e v e r s a l i s proper.'" 1076 So. (Ala. Civ. 2d 27, 30 App. (Ala. 21 judge a strong takes showing M i l l e r v. H a r r i s , 2006) 1983)). (quoting Bull 945 v. 2100259 In t h e i r brief to this court, the Steeles contend that t h e H i l l s and O'Neal f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t t h e y " p o s s e s s e d " roadway t o t h e e x c l u s i o n o f o t h e r s title" to the uninterrupted roadway was f o r t h e 20 y e a r s or that adverse, before their App. 2009), regarding this the court reiterated establishment of t h e a c t i o n was the a " c l a i m of continuous, I n J o h n s o n v. M e t r o L a n d Co., 18 So. 3d 962, 968 well private the and filed. (Ala. settled easement Civ. law by prescription: " I n Andrews v. H a t t e n , 794 So. 2d 1184, 1186 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 1 ) , t h i s c o u r t i n d i c a t e d t h a t , ' [ i ] n order to establish [a p r i v a t e ] easement by p r e s c r i p t i o n , t h e c l a i m a n t must u s e t h e p r o p e r t y o v e r w h i c h t h e easement i s c l a i m e d , f o r a p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s o r more, i n a manner a d v e r s e t o t h e owner o f t h e p r o p e r t y , u n d e r a c l a i m o f r i g h t , and t h e u s e must be e x c l u s i v e , c o n t i n u o u s , and u n i n t e r r u p t e d , w i t h t h e a c t u a l or p r e s u m p t i v e knowledge of the owner.'" I n B e l c h e r v. B e l c h e r , 284 A l a . 254, 257, 224 So. 2d 613, 615 ( 1 9 6 9 ) , o u r supreme c o u r t a f f i r m e d a j u d g m e n t h o l d i n g t h a t t h e owners o f p r o p e r t y road road. adjacent t o p r o p e r t y t r a v e r s e d by t h e a t i s s u e h a d a p r i v a t e easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n Evidence i n that case indicated that the i n the property owners s e e k i n g t h e easement h a d u s e d t h e r o a d f o r more t h a n years t o access t h e i r property. 22 20 B e l c h e r , 284 A l a . a t 256, 406 2100259 So. 2d a t 614. was the adjacent their property the road a t issue i n Belcher owners' p r o p e r t y by v e h i c l e ; belongings road As i n t h i s c a s e , they only means used the road of accessing to haul their t o and from t h e i r p r o p e r t y , t h e i r c h i l d r e n u s e d t h e t o go t o a n d f r o m s c h o o l , r o a d when t h e y v i s i t e d b y c a r . and t h e i r v i s i t o r s used the I d . , 284 A l a . a t 256-57, 406 So. 2d a t 614-15. L i k e w i s e , i n F i s h e r v. H i g g i n b o t h a m , 406 So. 2d 888 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) , o u r supreme private easement owners court by of property a f f i r m e d a judgment h o l d i n g t h a t a prescription adjoining another's t r a v e r s e d by t h e r o a d i n q u e s t i o n . The p r o p e r t y predecessors, And a g a i n , property the noted owners case, that the property "produced evidence tract of property as w e l l as f o r a l m o s t 50 y e a r s . their Id. t h e r o a d was t h e o n l y means t h e owners h a d t o a c c e s s establishing e s t a b l i s h e d by F i s h e r , 406 So. 2d a t 888. t h e easement, had used t h e road as i n t h i s judgment Belcher] seeking had been their property. t h e easement, owners seeking In a f f i r m i n g o u r supreme t h e easement court had o f s i m i l a r u s e [as t h e u s e d e m o n s t r a t e d i n ... e x t e n d i n g o v e r s e v e r a l d e c a d e s , a n d we c a n n o t s a y 23 2100259 that the decree of the t r i a l manifestly unjust." Here, c o u r t was p l a i n l y I d . a t 889. the undisputed evidence indicates that, l e a s t 1972, P h i l l i p s and h i s s u c c e s s o r s continuously and O'Neal. erroneous or to access since at have u s e d t h e roadway t h e p r o p e r t i e s now owned b y t h e H i l l s Other evidence indicated that t h e roadway had been i n use s i n c e a t l e a s t 1911. the a s k e d O t h a , James, o r H a r o l d f o r r e c o r d t h a t anyone e v e r permission use T h e r e i s no i n d i c a t i o n i n t o u s e t h e roadway; t h u s , o f t h e r o a d w a y was Fisher, supra. Steeles had The actual roadway t o a c c e s s In B e l c h e r , "exclusivity" and O ' N e a l ' s adverse t o the S t e e l e s ' evidence knowledge the property also that context of title. demonstrates others were t h a t l a y beyond o u r supreme c o u r t i n the the H i l l s ' discussed obtaining that the using the theirs. t h e meaning o f an easement follows: "[I]n T i f f a n y R e a l P r o p e r t y , T h i r d E d i t i o n , V o l . 4, § 1199, ' N e c e s s i t y o f e x c l u s i v e u s e r , ' [was d e f i n e d ] as f o l l o w s : " ' I t i s sometimes s a i d t h a t , i n o r d e r t o a c q u i r e a r i g h t o f u s e r by p r e s c r i p t i o n , the user d u r i n g the p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d must be e x c l u s i v e , b u t t h i s a p p e a r s t o be so i n a v e r y l i m i t e d s e n s e , i f a t a l l . I t means, i t has b e e n s a i d , no more t h a n t h a t 24 See as 2100259 t h e c l a i m a n t ' s r i g h t must r e s t upon i t s own f o u n d a t i o n s and n o t d e p e n d upon a l i k e right i n any o t h e r p e r s o n ; i t i s not n e c e s s a r y t h a t he s h o u l d h a v e b e e n t h e o n l y one who u s e d o r was e n t i t l e d t o u s e i t , so l o n g as he u s e d i t u n d e r a c l a i m o f r i g h t independently of others. For instance, the user of another's land f o r purposes of passage, i f continued f o r the p r e s c r i p t i v e p e r i o d , may o p e r a t e t o c r e a t e an easement o f a r i g h t o f way, a l t h o u g h t h e owner o f t h e l a n d a l s o p a s s e s upon t h e same l i n e o r a l l o w s others t o pass thereon, nor i s i t m a t e r i a l , i n t h i s r e g a r d , t h a t an e x a c t l y s i m i l a r easement o f p a s s a g e i n f a v o r o f another i s already existent, or i s i n course of establishment.'" Belcher, In 284 A l a . a t 257, 224 So. 2d a t 615. this placed across evidence was case, Harold the entrance presented testified gate purchased keys to dispute only a cable had t o t h e roadway i n t h e 1 9 7 0 s . e r e c t e d a gate a t the entrance provided that to that claim. Lonnie been No Hill t o t h e roadway i n 1984, and he James Steele and, when h i s p r o p e r t y , t o O'Neal and t h e u t i l i t y O'Neal company so t h a t t h e y c o u l d u s e t h e roadway t o a c c e s s t h e O'Neal p r o p e r t y . The l o c k e d g a t e i n d i c a t e s t h a t the H i l l s and O'Neal intended t h e u s e o f t h e roadway t o be e x c l u s i v e t o t h e p r o p e r t y owners along others t h e roadway used the and their roadway guests, to 25 reach regardless hunting of whether and fishing 2100259 destinations. s u p p o r t e d by Belcher and The failing Fisher, the Steeles to court's judgment s u b s t a n t i a l evidence, judgment i n t h i s The trial we cannot c a s e was also and, say in as that this was the case is the case in trial court's p l a i n l y erroneous. contend that the trial court erred in and for done t o t h e i r p r o p e r t y . In award them m o n e t a r y damages f o r t r e s p a s s a c t u a l damage t h e y c l a i m was i t s judgment, the t r i a l c o u r t d i d not s p e c i f i c a l l y address the Steeles' the Hills claim and f o r m o n e t a r y damages. O'Neal p r e s c r i p t i o n and trial It had established After finding that a private easement setting forth t h e i r rights accordingly, court d e n i e d a l l other r e l i e f or claims i s well s e t t l e d that, o f f a c t , an a p p e l l a t e i n the by the of the p a r t i e s . absence of s p e c i f i c f i n d i n g s c o u r t w i l l presume t h a t t h e t r i a l made t h o s e f i n d i n g s n e c e s s a r y t o s u p p o r t i t s j u d g m e n t , court unless s u c h f i n d i n g s w o u l d be c l e a r l y e r r o n e o u s . B a k e r v. B a k e r , So. see 2d 659, 662 B r y o w s k y , 676 The record (Ala. Civ. So.2d 1322, App. 1324 2003); (Ala. also Ex 862 parte 1996). indicates that witnesses disagreed about the c o n d i t i o n o f t h e roadway a f t e r Thompson's e m p l o y e e s w o r k e d it. Harold t e s t i f i e d that the 26 roadway was not i n as good on a 2100259 c o n d i t i o n as i t h a d b e e n b e f o r e t h e summer o f 2002. that the roadway had been restored and said He d e n i e d that where p r e v i o u s l y he h a d b e e n a b l e t o d r i v e "down t h r o u g h t h e r e my c a r , " he " w o u l d n ' t p u t any k i n d o f c a r down t h r o u g h at the time of the t r i a l . He l a t e r testified with there" t h a t he could n o t d r i v e h i s s m a l l c a r down t h e roadway b e c a u s e o f r u t s , he " a s s u m e [ d ] " one could not d r i v e roadway b e c a u s e , he s a i d , Harold roadway litigation c a r on t h e the car would drag. acknowledged since a mid-sized and that began he had i n this not maintained case i n 2002. the When H a r o l d was shown p h o t o g r a p h s o f t h e roadway t a k e n i n t h e fall o f 2004, a f t e r Thompson h a d g r a d e d i t , he a d m i t t e d t h a t i n t h e photographs than t h e roadway i t h a d been i n 2002, " i f t h e However, he d e n i e d t h a t the a p p e a r e d t o be i n better condition [ p h o t o g r a p h s ] were the photographs a c c u r a t e l y roadway a t t h e t i m e o f depicted trial. Harold also t e s t i f i e d that the timber-harvesting or real." "whoever" g r a d e d t h e roadway h a d p u s h e d " d i r t i n t o a f e n c e t h a t r a n b e s i d e t h e roadway. and company stuff" He a l s o s a i d t r e e s h a d b e e n k n o c k e d i n t o t h e f e n c e and t h a t t h e f e n c e in shambles. that was He s a i d t h a t b e f o r e t h e roadway was g r a d e d , t h e 27 2100259 f e n c e h a d b e e n good. also claimed t h a t a b u l l d o z e r had demolished a shed next t o h i s barn w h i l e work on t h e roadway was b e i n g done. Harold He also testified that a ditch that had d r a i n e d w a t e r f r o m t h e roadway i n t o a c r e e k was s t o p p e d up and that water now cultivated. backs Harold field but that could no l o n g e r up in a said that the people field that previously who leased grow b e a n s t h e r e had once been he h a d r e n t e d t h e i t had t o l d because there him they was now t o o much w a t e r i n t h e f i e l d . Wayne Summers, who s a i d he was "maybe relative of permission, the Steeles, testified [a] r e a l d i s t a n t " that, with Otha's he h a d w a l k e d on t h e roadway "a c o u p l e o f t i m e s a week" f o r s e v e r a l y e a r s , both before a n d a f t e r 2002. Summers s a i d t h a t he d i d n o t know o f anyone o t h e r t h a n t h e S t e e l e s u s e d t h e roadway a n d t h a t he was u n f a m i l i a r w i t h anyone who else who w o u l d have a n e e d t o u s e t h e roadway. On d i r e c t e x a m i n a t i o n , Summers s a i d t h a t , a t t h e t i m e o f the trial, been b e f o r e t h e roadway was i n a w o r s e c o n d i t i o n t h a n i t h a d 2002. Before 2002, he s a i d , there were places where t h e roadway h e l d w a t e r , b u t , he added, t h e roadway h a d a r o c k b o t t o m a n d a c a r c o u l d be d r i v e n on i t . He 28 testified 2100259 that, c u r r e n t l y , when i t r a i n s "you c a n ' t d r i v e a f o u r - w h e e l truck down t h r o u g h there, probably." n e x t t o t h e roadway c o u l d no l o n g e r was muddy. that, He a l s o said a field be c u l t i v a t e d b e c a u s e i t However, on c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n , Summers testified s i n c e 2004, b r u s h h a d b e e n c l e a r e d o f f t h e roadway a n d t h a t i t was w i d e r t h a n i t h a d b e e n , b u t o t h e r w i s e , looked he s a i d , i t t h e same. On t h e o t h e r h a n d , w i t n e s s e s t e s t i f y i n g on b e h a l f of the H i l l s a n d O'Neal t e s t i f i e d t h a t t h e roadway h a d b e e n i m p r o v e d since the H i l l s testified to Additionally, and O'Neal improvements had been he had using made to i t . O'Neal the roadway. Mark H e n l e y , who Thompson h a d h i r e d t o r e p a i r t h e roadway when i t h a d f i n i s h e d h a r v e s t i n g t i m b e r on O ' N e a l ' s property, roadway. 2004. testified to improvements H e n l e y s a i d t h a t he he had made to the d i d t h e r o a d work i n J a n u a r y He s a i d t h a t he c o u l d s e e where w a t e r h a d b e e n across t h e roadway, beside t h e roadway s o he while out the d i t c h a n d p u t down g r a v e l g o i n g down t h e d i t c h . " any t r e e s cleaned " t o keep rushing that ran the water H e n l e y d e n i e d t h a t he h a d k n o c k e d down w o r k i n g on t h e r o a d w a y . 29 T h e r e was a l s o no 2100259 evidence presented i n d i c a t i n g t h a t H e n l e y was r e s p o n s i b l e f o r damage t o t h e S t e e l e s ' f e n c e a n d s h e d . Todd L a n g s t o n , who a l s o worked f o r Thompson, s a i d that when he f i r s t saw t h e roadway, i t h a d s t a n d i n g w a t e r , b r u s h on the side roadway, o f t h e roadway was a n d t h e roadway harvesting improved When began had rocks on O ' N e a l ' s t h e roadway the timber grown up a n d h a n g i n g land, so t h a t harvesting i m p r o v e d t h e roadway and l e f t on Langston logging was i t . Before said, trucks completed, over the he could timber Thompson use i t . said, i t i n good c o n d i t i o n . Henley Langston t e s t i f i e d t h a t he w i s h e d t h a t Thompson h a d h a d more t i m e t o do more work on t h e roadway, b u t , he s a i d , O t h a and James, d e s c r i b e d finish improving have. There earlier, the s i t u a t i o n d i d n o t a l l o w Thompson t o t h e roadway i n t h e manner i t n o r m a l l y was no evidence with presented indicating would that Thompson h a d damaged t h e s h e d o r t h e f e n c e . The e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e damage, i f any, t o t h e roadway was i n d i s p u t e , as was e v i d e n c e r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r work on t h e roadway h a d c a u s e d an i n f l u x o f w a t e r o n t o t h e S t e e l e s ' field. H a r o l d t e s t i f i e d t h a t a d i t c h t h a t had d r a i n e d water from the roadway i n t o a c r e e k was s t o p p e d up, c a u s i n g t h e w a t e r t o b a c k 30 2100259 up; H e n l e y t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d c l e a n e d o u t t h e d i t c h a n d h a d repaired i t so t h a t w a t e r evidence was presented d i d not overflow as t o who was damage t o t h e S t e e l e s ' f e n c e and s h e d . the trial Pursuant this court personally t o the ore tenus case, this viewed standard the d i t c h . responsible No f o r the M o r e o v e r , we n o t e t h a t t h e roadway of review at issue. applicable i n c o u r t may n o t r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e o r s i t i n judgment o f d i s p u t e d evidence. "'When t h e e v i d e n c e i n a c a s e i s i n c o n f l i c t , t h e t r i e r o f f a c t has t o r e s o l v e t h e c o n f l i c t s i n t h e t e s t i m o n y , and i t i s n o t w i t h i n t h e p r o v i n c e o f t h e appellate court t o reweigh the testimony and s u b s t i t u t e i t s own j u d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f t h e t r i e r o f fact.' D e l b r i d g e v . C i v i l S e r v . Bd. o f T u s c a l o o s a , 481 So. 2d 911, 913 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 5 ) . ' [ A ] n a p p e l l a t e c o u r t may n o t s u b s t i t u t e i t s j u d g m e n t f o r that of the t r i a l court. To do s o w o u l d be t o r e w e i g h t h e e v i d e n c e , w h i c h A l a b a m a l a w does n o t a l l o w . ' Ex p a r t e F o l e y , 864 So. 2d 1094, 1099 ( A l a . 2003) ( c i t a t i o n s o m i t t e d ) . " Ex p a r t e R.E.C., 899 So. 2d 272, 279 ( A l a . 2 0 0 4 ) . B a s e d upon t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e r e c o r d , we c o n c l u d e the t r i a l that c o u r t c o u l d have f o u n d t h a t t h e S t e e l e s h a d f a i l e d t o p r o v e t h a t , t o t h e e x t e n t any o f t h e i r p r o p e r t y , i n c l u d i n g t h e roadway, t h e f i e l d , the named d e f e n d a n t s ' the fence, had caused 31 and t h e s h e d , was damaged, that damage. The record 2100259 supports the t r i a l court's judgment rejecting the S t e e l e s ' c l a i m f o r m o n e t a r y damages. The S t e e l e s have n o t p r o v i d e d for reversal. the t r i a l this c o u r t w i t h any b a s i s F o r t h e r e a s o n s s t a t e d above, t h e judgment o f court i s affirmed. AFFIRMED. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n Thomas, J., dissents, with joins. 32 and B r y a n , J J . , c o n c u r . writing, which Moore, J . , 2100259 THOMAS, J u d g e , d i s s e n t i n g . I respectfully dissent. trial the I would reverse t h e cause court a n d remand t h e judgment o f f o r the joinder J a c k s o n C o u n t y as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . county i s an determine Autery, indispensable whether 554 So. a road party t o an i s public action The seeking or p r i v a t e . of Boles to v. 2d 959, 962 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) . "The t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f w h e t h e r t h e r o a d was p u b l i c o r was p r i v a t e m i g h t a f f e c t n o t o n l y the r i g h t s of the i n d i v i d u a l l i t i g a n t s b u t a l s o the r i g h t s o f members o f t h e p u b l i c t o u s e t h e r o a d , t h e d u t y o f t h e c o u n t y t o m a i n t a i n i t , and t h e l i a b i l i t y of the county f o r f a i l u r e t o m a i n t a i n i t . I f the c o u n t y i s n o t j o i n e d as a p a r t y , t h e n n e i t h e r i t n o r o t h e r members o f t h e p u b l i c a r e b o u n d b y t h e t r i a l court's ruling. A c c o r d i n g l y , i f t h e c o u n t y and o t h e r p e r s o n s a r e n o t bound, t h e n t h e s t a t u s o f t h e r o a d as p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e i s s u b j e c t t o b e i n g l i t i g a t e d a g a i n , and t h e r e s u l t s o f l a t e r l i t i g a t i o n may be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e i n i t i a l litigation." Boles, 554 So. 2d a t 961. One Hill, had of the theories and A n i t a H i l l advanced i n their by complaint Hugh O'Neal, Lonnie was t h a t t h e roadway been, and remained, a p u b l i c r o a d . T e s t i m o n y was later i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l r e g a r d i n g w h e t h e r t h e roadway was a p u b l i c r o a d , a n d O'Neal a n d t h e H i l l s a r g u e d a g a i n i n t h e i r b r i e f t h a t t h e roadway was a p u b l i c r o a d . 33 posttrial Thus, t h e q u e s t i o n 2100259 w h e t h e r t h e roadway was trial court. a p u b l i c r o a d was Although O'Neal and t h e H i l l s the t r i a l c l e a r l y before the court b a s e d on t h e i r found alternate i n favor claim of that t h e y h a d a p r i v a t e easement b y p r e s c r i p t i o n i n t h e roadway -¬ that determination necessarily roadway i s n o t a p u b l i c along with public the t h e roadway court, and the was Harold 559 a that the O'Neal and t h e H i l l s , roadway. a public finding Steele, to exclude Because the the question r o a d was and b e c a u s e t h e t r i a l at issue i n the court's judgment affects use o f t h e roadway by t h e p u b l i c , indispensable 3d road, a l l o w i n g Steele from accessing whether trial Otha implies J a c k s o n C o u n t y was an p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n . See W i l s o n v. B e r r y , 36 So. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) . This court has routinely reversed judgments in cases b e t w e e n p r i v a t e p a r t i e s where t h e q u e s t i o n w h e t h e r a roadway i s p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e has a r i s e n , h o l d i n g an indispensable party to D a w k i n s , 19 So. 3d 241, 244 the c o u n t y was the that action. the county was See Allbritten v. ( A l a . C i v . App. 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o l d i n g an i n d i s p e n s a b l e party t o an a c t i o n that between p r i v a t e p a r t i e s i n v o l v i n g the q u e s t i o n whether the p l a i n t i f f s had acquired a p r i v a t e easement o r , a l t e r n a t i v e l y , w h e t h e r t h e 34 2100259 roadway was that the a p u b l i c road); Wilson, county between two was an private 36 So. indispensable parties that 2d 963, county the So. was 966 an party where indispensable roadway was i n question); The main from the opinion to (holding an action public status of been only 3d absence be equitable where has the Jackson County's equitable principles generally issue of have the been r a i s e d a f t e r absence the I n B y r d Cos. v. S m i t h , 591 So. 2d entry 844 t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t d e c l i n e d t o r e v e r s e f a i l u r e t o j o i n an i n d i s p e n s a b l e r a i s e d the issue was aware o f t h e So. 2d at 847. 478, e x c u s e d b a s e d on of of j u d g m e n t , as i s a p p a r e n t f r o m t h e c a s e s r e l i e d on by t h e opinion. a that argues However, party Burnett 2009). principles. indispensable evidence L a n e y v. Garmon, 25 So. i n s t a n t action should applied action 2002) party p r i v a t e p a r t i e s i n which the ( A l a . C i v . App. an was ( A l a . C i v . App. and (holding once p u b l i c ) ; b e t w e e n two 480 to there i n d i c a t i n g t h a t a roadway a t i s s u e was v. Munoz, 853 3d a t 561 f o r the first absence of the Byrd, i n turn, 35 the main ( A l a . 1991), a judgment f o r p a r t y when t h e a p p e l l a n t t i m e on an had a p p e a l even though i t party before cited J.R. the trial. McClenney & 591 Son, 2100259 Inc. v. Reimer, supreme court, 435 based So. 2d 50 ( A l a . 1983), on e q u i t a b l e i n which principles, our declined to r e v e r s e t h e d e n i a l o f a R u l e 6 0 ( b ) ( 4 ) , A l a . R. C i v . P., m o t i o n when t h e p a r t y h a d n o t a l l e g e d t h e a b s e n c e o f an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y a t t r i a l and had n o t a p p e a l e d t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s judgment but i n s t e a d had r a i s e d the i s s u e f o r t h e f i r s t 60(b) m o t i o n f i l e d So. 2d a t 52. 416 time i n a Rule a f t e r t h e t i m e f o r a p p e a l h a d e x p i r e d . 435 B y r d a l s o c i t e d Geer B r o t h e r s , So. 2d 1045 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 8 2 ) , I n c . v. Walker, i n which this court d e c l i n e d , on e q u i t a b l e p r i n c i p l e s , to reverse a judgment f o r failure party the issue to join an i n d i s p e n s a b l e r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t a t 1050. As a l s o n o t e d i n Geer B r o t h e r s , i s r a i s e d f o r the f i r s t concluded, 'considerations that the court time a f t e r of j u d i c i a l closely "when t h e i s s u e o f the t r i a l examine the merits o f any t o be c e r t a i n t h a t i t r e a l l y w i l l prejudicial Id.(quoting effects.'" 7 C. W r i g h t P r a c t i c e a n d P r o c e d u r e § 1609 a t 90 In the i n s t a n t a c t i o n , the S t e e l e s the absence o f J a c k s o n County & A. have Miller, (1972)). r a i s e d the issue of at the beginning 36 has economy a n d f a i r n e s s assertion of nonjoinder Federal was t i m e i n a p o s t j u d g m e n t m o t i o n . 416 So. 2d nonjoinder dictate when of t r i a l and 2100259 again in their posttrial brief; thus, they w e l l b e f o r e the e n t r y of the judgment. c a s e s c i t e d by the main o p i n i o n r a i s e d the Therefore, issue the Alabama f o r the p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t we s h o u l d not r e v e r s e the judgment i n the i n s t a n t a c t i o n f o r the failure to principles join an indispensable are w h o l l y party based on equitable inapposite. L a s t l y , I c a n n o t a g r e e , as t h e m a i n o p i n i o n a s s e r t s , t h a t the judgment i n t h i s case i s n e c e s s a r i l y f a v o r a b l e t o J a c k s o n County. any Although i t i s t r u e t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t does n o t impose a d d i t i o n a l d u t i e s on J a c k s o n C o u n t y , J a c k s o n C o u n t y w o u l d also represent action -- the a general i n t e r e s t s of the public that general public the from u s i n g i s excluded in the Moreover, the roadway p u r s u a n t t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . e x c l u s i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l p u b l i c f r o m u s i n g t h e roadway c r e a t e s the possibility have to lawsuit t h a t O'Neal, the relitigate the brought Jackson by status Hills, of the County or and roadway by g e n e r a l p u b l i c , w h i c h i s t h e v e r y r e a s o n why an So. i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y to the 2d at 961 bound, t h e n the ( " [ I ] f the status of the a Steeles in member the 37 and road as other future of the Jackson County i s i n s t a n t a c t i o n . See county a may Boles, persons are 554 not p u b l i c or p r i v a t e i s 2100259 subject to being l i t i g a t i o n may l i t i g a t e d again, and the results of be i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e r e s u l t s o f t h e later initial litigation."). "The absence of a necessary n e c e s s i t a t e s t h e d i s m i s s a l [by t h e without and indispensable trial court] of the party cause p r e j u d i c e or a r e v e r s a l w i t h d i r e c t i o n s to a l l o w c a u s e t o s t a n d o v e r f o r amendment." J.C. C a m p b e l l , 406 So. 2d 834, 850-51 would reverse the judgment of the t r i a l J a c o b s B a n k i n g Co. ( A l a . 1981). remand t h e cause indispensable party, i s s u e s r a i s e d on Moore, J . for remand to I express appeal. concurs. 38 no join Jackson opinion on I the indispensable Because I would r e v e r s e the judgment failure v. Accordingly, c o u r t and c a u s e t o t h a t c o u r t t o j o i n J a c k s o n C o u n t y as an p a r t y to the a c t i o n . the County the as and an remaining

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.