Noland Wilson et al. v. Horace E. Berry and Carolyn C. Berry
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 10/16/2009 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 , 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, 2009-2010 2080615 Noland Wilson e t a l . v. Horace E. Berry and C a r o l y n C. Berry Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-43) THOMAS, J u d g e . Horace contiguous E. Berry parcels and C a r o l y n of real estate C. Berry i n Fayette own several C o u n t y ("the Berry property"). One p a r c e l o f t h e B e r r y p r o p e r t y a b u t s one o f two c o n t i g u o u s p a r c e l s o f p r o p e r t y owned b y t h e e s t a t e o f 2080615 C.J. Wilson ("the W i l s o n p r o p e r t y " ) . from a county r o a d known A dirt road t r a v e r s e s as C o p r i c h R o a d a c r o s s a p o r t i o n o f t h e W i l s o n p r o p e r t y and a c r o s s a s m a l l p o r t i o n o f n e i g h b o r i n g property before i t reaches the Berry property. The B e r r y s , and, b e f o r e them, H o r a c e ' s f a t h e r , h a v e u s e d t h i s d i r t r o a d t o haul timber, to reforest their property, maintain t h e i r property f o r approximately and to otherwise 50 y e a r s . A t some p o i n t i n m i d t o l a t e 2007, N o l a n d W i l s o n , one o f t h e h e i r s o f C.J. Wilson, put a cable B e r r y s ' access across the road, o b s t r u c t i n g the to the road. The B e r r y s s u e d t h e e s t a t e and t h e h e i r s o f C . J . W i l s o n -- Noland Wilson, Wilson, James R. W i l s o n , Earline Brown defendants") no other less Wilson, J.C. Benjamin Wilson, (referred to collectively Wilson, Eulene as Robelton Nalls, "the and Wilson a l l e g i n g t h a t t h e i r l a n d was l a n d l o c k e d , t h a t access available, "not Pauline to a county road from their land was and t h a t t h e y h a d u s e d and i m p r o v e d t h e r o a d f o r than 50 y e a r s . " The day b e f o r e trial, the Berrys amended t h e i r c o m p l a i n t t o s p e c i f i c a l l y a l l e g e t h a t t h e y were entitled trial, to a prescriptive the t r i a l easement i n t h e r o a d . court entered 2 After a a judgment i n f a v o r o f the 2080615 Berrys declaring that easement i n t h e r o a d . t h e y were e n t i t l e d to a prescriptive The W i l s o n d e f e n d a n t s a p p e a l e d t o t h e A l a b a m a Supreme C o u r t , w h i c h transferred the appeal to t h i s c o u r t , p u r s u a n t t o A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) . Testimony a t t r i a l e s t a b l i s h e d that the p a r t i e s believed t h a t t h e r o a d h a d b e e n a p u b l i c r o a d a t one t i m e a n d t h a t t h e y "presumed" i t h a d b e e n a b a n d o n e d " q u i t e some t i m e ago" b e c a u s e F a y e t t e C o u n t y no l o n g e r m a i n t a i n e d t h e r o a d . 1 Noland Wilson t e s t i f i e d t h a t he h a d " s i g n e d [ t h e r o a d ] o v e r t o J e s s i e Kemp," who, according commissioner to Noland, i n o r around had 1956. been Noland the county specifically road stated I n o r d e r t o change t h e c h a r a c t e r o f a p u b l i c r o a d , t h e r o a d must e i t h e r be v a c a t e d p u r s u a n t t o a s t a t u t o r y p r o c e d u r e , see A l a . Code 1975, § 23-4-2 ( s e t t i n g o u t p r o c e d u r e f o r a m u n i c i p a l i t y o r c o u n t y t o v a c a t e a p u b l i c r o a d ) a n d § 23-4-20 ( s e t t i n g o u t p r o c e d u r e b y w h i c h a b u t t i n g l a n d o w n e r s may v a c a t e a p u b l i c r o a d ) , o r be a b a n d o n e d . Kennedy v . H i n e s , 660 So. 2d 1335, 1339 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1 9 9 5 ) . The abandonment o f a p u b l i c r o a d may be a c c o m p l i s h e d b y nonuse o f t h e r o a d f o r a p e r i o d o f 20 y e a r s o r , i n s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h a n o t h e r r o a d r e p l a c e s t h e r o a d i n q u e s t i o n , b y nonuse f o r a p e r i o d s h o r t e r t h a n 20 y e a r s . W a l k e r v. W i n s t o n C o u n t y Comm'n, 474 So. 2d 1116, 1117 ( A l a . 1 9 8 5 ) ; Kennedy, 660 So. 2d a t 1339. The p e r s o n c l a i m i n g t h e abandonment b e a r s t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g nonuse f o r t h e r e q u i s i t e p e r i o d by c l e a r and c o n v i n c i n g e v i d e n c e . Walker, 474 So. 2d a t 1117; Kennedy, 660 So. 2d a t 1339. A l t h o u g h r e l e v a n t t o t h e abandonment i n q u i r y , " [ c ] o u n t y m a i n t e n a n c e i s n o t e s s e n t i a l t o t h e s t a t u s o f a p u b l i c r o a d . " Kennedy, 660 So. 2d a t 1339; s e e a l s o W a l k e r , 474 So. 2d a t 1117. 1 3 2080615 t h a t t h e r o a d was a c o u n t y r o a d " u n t i l t h e c o u n t y q u i t working [ t h a t r o a d ] , " a n d he s t a t e d t h a t he "was t h e one t h a t the road -- s i g n e d the right-of-way signed f o r them t o b u i l d that road i n there." Based road on t h e u n d i s p u t e d i n question 1956. was evidence, a p u b l i c road Because the evidence reflects i t appears when that the i t was c r e a t e d i n that a question remains r e g a r d i n g whether i t i s s t i l l a p u b l i c road, F a y e t t e County i s an i n d i s p e n s a b l e p a r t y t o t h i s a c t i o n . 565 D u n a v a n t v. J o h n s o n , So. 2d 198, 198 ( A l a . 1 9 9 0 ) ; A l l b r i t t o n v . D a w k i n s , [Ms. 2080063, M a r c h 27, 2009] So. 3d 2009). The f a i l u r e F a y e t t e C o u n t y as a p a r t y result i n i n c o n s i s t e n t judgments duties, to join and l i a b i l i t i e s p u b l i c , and t h e county. (Ala. 1989). , and ( A l a . C i v . App. impact of the l i t i g a n t s , B o l e s v. A u t e r y , could the rights, members of the 554 So. 2d 959, 961 2 O u r supreme c o u r t e x p l a i n e d t h e r i s k o f f a i l i n g t o j o i n t h e c o u n t y i n an a c t i o n i n v o l v i n g a d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e p u b l i c o r p r i v a t e n a t u r e o f a r o a d i n B o l e s , 554 So. 2d a t 961, t h u s l y : 2 "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 o f 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 4 2080615 The 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 may be r a i s e d b y an a p p e l l a t e c o u r t e x mero motu. 2d 785, 790 (Ala. 2002); G i l b e r t v. N i c h o l s o n , Allbritton, So. 3d a t Furthermore, " ' [ t ] h e absence o f a n e c e s s a r y party necessitates the dismissal 845 So. of . and i n d i s p e n s a b l e the cause without p r e j u d i c e o r a r e v e r s a l w i t h d i r e c t i o n s t o a l l o w t h e cause t o s t a n d o v e r f o r amendment.'" 263, 265 (Ala. Withington 1988) ( q u o t i n g v. Cloud, J.C. J a c o b s Banking C a m p b e l l , 406 So. 2d 834, 851 ( A l a . 1 9 8 1 ) ) . reverse with t h e judgment o f t h e t r i a l i n s t r u c t i o n s that Fayette County proceedings Co. v . Accordingly, we c o u r t a n d remand t h e c a u s e the t r i a l as an i n d i s p e n s a b l e consistent with this 522 So. 2d court party allow joinder of and f o r f u r t h e r opinion. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , Bryan, and Moore, J J . , concur. d u t y o f t h e county 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 maintain 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 c o u r t ' s r u l i n g . 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 , a n d 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 inconsistent with the results of the i n i t i a l litigation." 5
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.
