Estate of C.J. Wilson, deceased, et al. v. Horace Berry et al.

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 2/04/2011 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011 2090955 E s t a t e o f C.J. Wilson, deceased, et a l . v. Horace Berry e t a l . Appeal from Fayette C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-43) THOMAS, J u d g e . This this i s t h e second time these court. 2009). Wilson v. B e r r y , p a r t i e s have a p p e a r e d i n 36 So. 3 d 559 ( A l a . The p e r t i n e n t f a c t s were s e t o u t i n W i l s o n : C i v . App. 2090955 " H o r a c e E. B e r r y and C a r o l y n C. B e r r y own several contiguous p a r c e l s of r e a l estate i n Fayette C o u n t y ('the B e r r y p r o p e r t y ' ) . 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 C . J . W i l s o n ('the W i l s o n p r o p e r t y ' ) . A d i r t road t r a v e r s e s from a c o u n t y r o a d known 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 neighboring property before i t reaches the Berry p r o p e r t y . 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 , have u s e d t h i s d i r t r o a d t o h a u l t i m b e r , t o r e f o r e s t t h e i r p r o p e r t y , and t o o t h e r w i s e m a i n t a i n t h e i r p r o p e r t y f o r a p p r o x i m a t e l y 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 of C.J. Wilson, put a cable across the road, o b s t r u c t i n g the B e r r y s ' access 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 -- N o l a n d W i l s o n , P a u l i n e W i l s o n , J.C. W i l s o n , R o b e l t o n W i l s o n , James R. W i l s o n , B e n j a m i n W i l s o n , E u l e n e N a i l s , and E a r l i n e Brown ( r e f e r r e d t o c o l l e c t i v e l y as ' t h e W i l s o n d e f e n d a n t s ' ) -- 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 no o t h e r a c c e s s t o a c o u n t y r o a d f r o m t h e i r l a n d was a v a i l a b l e , 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 ' n o t l e s s t h a n 50 y e a r s . ' The day b e f o r e t r i a l , t h e Berrys amended t h e i r complaint to specifically a l l e g e t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement i n t h e r o a d . A f t e r a t r i a l , t h e t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment i n f a v o r of the B e r r y s d e c l a r i n g t h a t t h e y were e n t i t l e d t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e easement in the road." Wilson, 36 So. 3d a t 560. Because the t e s t i m o n y a t t r i a l i n d i c a t e d t h a t the p a r t i e s b e l i e v e d t h a t t h e r o a d i n q u e s t i o n h a d b e e n a p u b l i c roadway t h a t h a d b e e n a b a n d o n e d a t some p o i n t , we r e v e r s e d t h e trial c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t b e c a u s e F a y e t t e C o u n t y was an i n d i s p e n s a b l e 2 2090955 p a r t y t o t h e a c t i o n and a t 561. As we explained had n o t b e e n made a p a r t y b e l o w . i n footnote one of the Id. opinion: " 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 out 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 or county t o v a c a t e a p u b l i c r o a d ) and § 23-4-20 ( s e t t i n g o u t p r o c e d u r e by 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. 1995) . 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 by 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 which another road r e p l a c e s the road i n q u e s t i o n , by 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 . W a l k e r , 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 not e s s e n t i a l to the s t a t u s of a p u b l i c road.' Kennedy, 660 So. 2d a t 1339; see a l s o W a l k e r , 474 So. 2d a t 1117." I d . a t 560 On n.1. remand, F a y e t t e action. On March administrator, party stated on that direction, and the 29, C o u n t y was 2010, John a d d e d as R. a party Gordon, f i l e d a motion to dismiss Fayette basis he, "or of his attached someone examined the on records f i n d [ s i c ] that Fayette affidavit, [ h i s ] behalf of F a y e t t e County does not 3 to the county C o u n t y as i n which has at County, own, the a he [his] Alabama, nor has i t 2090955 ever owned, any i n t e r e s t i n and s u b j e c t of t h i s l a w s u i t . " The trial C o u n t y as a p a r t y on A p r i l 28, motion to dismiss, and to the p r o p e r t y which i s the 2010, court dismissed Fayette on t h e b a s i s o f G o r d o n ' s i t reiterated the findings in i t s o r i g i n a l judgment r e g a r d i n g i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n t h a t the were e n t i t l e d t o a p r e s c r i p t i v e The e s t a t e of C.J. Wilson Berrys easement. and C.J. Wilson's heirs W i l s o n d e f e n d a n t s " ) f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r t h e j u d g m e n t and a m o t i o n f o r a new trial. ("the vacate After a hearing, at which the W i l s o n d e f e n d a n t s s p e c i f i c a l l y p o i n t e d out t o the trial c o u r t t h a t t h e m o t i o n t o d i s m i s s F a y e t t e C o u n t y was filed by a licensed administrator, the motions. attorney Wilson Supreme The Court, pursuant On trial which the instead denied Wilson challenging conclusion that easement, arguing the Berrys that the § by their appealed t r a n s f e r r e d the including the court defendants t o A l a . Code 1975, appeal, but the county postjudgment to appeal not to the Alabama this court 12-2-7(6). defendants merits raise of the were e n t i t l e d trial court to several issues, trial a prescriptive e r r e d by F a y e t t e C o u n t y when t h e m o t i o n s e e k i n g d i s m i s s a l was 4 court's dismissing not filed 2090955 by an a t t o r n e y representing Fayette C o u n t y , and G o r d o n ' s a f f i d a v i t was f a u l t y b e c a u s e i t was We reverse the trial a r g u m e n t r a i s e d by court's judgment the Wilson of that t h r e s h o l d issue again m e r i t s of the t r i a l Although bars and § 11-1-2, may other a licensed a c o u r t o f l a w by Ala. v. 165, resolution be "a body c o r p o r a t e " represented attorney, this one i n c o u r t by court of i t s o f f i c e r s r e p r e s e n t e d by a l i c e n s e d a t t o r n e y . 594 167, second consideration of c o u r t have l o n g h e l d t h a t a c o r p o r a t i o n may C o n s t r . Co., our the no A l a b a m a c a s e has d i r e c t l y c o n s i d e r e d Code 1975, in on the c o u r t ' s judgment. a c o u n t y , w h i c h i s d e c l a r e d t o be than our that b a s e d on h e a r s a y . based defendants, arguing So. 2d 53 A-OK and our n o t be and whether by A l a . someone supreme represented must i n s t e a d be C o n s t r . Co v. C a s t l e ( A l a . 1 9 9 2 ) ; Ex p a r t e L a m b e r t h , 242 2d 622, 623 (1942); S t a g e Door Dev., Inc. Music, Broadcast 5 So. Inc., 698 So. 787 App. 1 9 9 7 ) ; b u t see P r o g r e s s J u n e 30, 2010] a filing by ___ So. 2d (Ala. Civ. I n d u s . , I n c . v. W i l s o n , 3d ___ , ___ a nonattorney ( A l a . 2010) [Ms. 1080578, (holding that on b e h a l f o f a c o r p o r a t i o n may be c o n s i d e r e d an " a p p e a r a n c e " f o r p u r p o s e s o f R u l e 5 5 ( b ) ( 2 ) , A l a . R. Civ. P.). As our supreme 5 court has explained, the 2090955 r a t i o n a l e behind p r o h i b i t i n g a nonattorney from r e p r e s e n t i n g the i n t e r e s t s o f a separate l e g a l e n t i t y p r o t e c t s the p u b l i c in three ways: "(1) by p r o t e c t i n g c i t i z e n s f r o m i n j u r y c a u s e d b y i g n o r a n c e and l a c k o f s k i l l on t h e p a r t o f t h o s e who are u n t r a i n e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e l a w ; (2) b y p r o t e c t i n g the courts i n t h e i r a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of j u s t i c e f r o m t h e i n t e r f e r e n c e o f t h o s e who a r e u n l i c e n s e d and a r e n o t o f f i c e r s o f t h e c o u r t ; and (3) b y p r e v e n t i n g t h e u n s c r u p u l o u s f r o m u s i n g t h e l e g a l s y s t e m f o r t h e i r own p u r p o s e s t o t h e d e t r i m e n t o f t h e s y s t e m and o f t h o s e who may u n k n o w i n g l y r e l y on them." Ex p a r t e G h a f a r y , 738 So. 2d 778, 779 ( A l a . 1998). c o n c e i v e o f no r e a s o n t o t r e a t a c o u n t y , w h i c h a corporate differently body than and any i n t e r e s t s of the p u b l i c , residents allowing behalf i s thus other and p o s s i b l y separate i s considered legal corporation. can entity, Certainly the and e s p e c i a l l y t h e i n t e r e s t s o f t h e of the p a r t i c u l a r a nonattorney a We county, official c o u l d be j e o p a r d i z e d by t o appear to b i n d the county t h a t t h e c o u n t y m i g h t be b e t t e r o f f n o t on the county's to a legal position assuming. Our supreme c o u r t h a s f u r t h e r d e s c r i b e d a p l e a d i n g f i l e d by a nonattorney "nullity." on b e h a l f o f a s e p a r a t e Ex p a r t e G h a f a r y , Progress Indus., 738 So. 3d a t So. legal entity as a 2d a t 781; s e e also ("This c o u r t h a s t h u s h e l d 6 2090955 that a pleading unauthorized separate filed practice by a non-attorney engaging of law i n p u r p o r t i n g legal entity i sa nullity."), i n the t o represent a n d Ex p a r t e Lamberth, 242 A l a . a t 167, 5 So. 2d a t 623-24 ( o r d e r i n g t h e t r i a l to vacate the i t s order denying answer of president). Fayette a Thus, County corporation we County, a l t h o u g h by that filed court motion t o s t r i k e the corporation's the motion by county was a n u l l i t y i t arguably Indus. , filed conclude as a p a r t y , Gordon, a n o n a t t o r n e y , Progress the p l a i n t i f f ' s a to dismiss administrator and, t h u s , that Fayette has appeared i n t h e a c t i o n , see So. 3d a t , has n o t y e t a s s e r t e d a p o s i t i o n i n the l i t i g a t i o n . We remand therefore t h e cause reverse the t r i a l f o r the t r i a l court's court judgment and to set aside i t s d i s m i s s a l o f F a y e t t e County as a p a r t y , f o r F a y e t t e County t o appear i n the action through an a t t o r n e y , f o r the issues w h e t h e r a n d when t h e r o a d was a b a n d o n e d b y t h e c o u n t y t o be d e t e r m i n e d b a s e d on e v i d e n c e other parties, presented and f o r t h e t r i a l b a s e d on i t s d e t e r m i n a t i o n court by t h e county and t h e t o enter a judgment regarding the s t a t u s o f the road. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. 7 2090955 Thompson, P . J . , and Pittman, concur. 8 Bryan, 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.