Ex parte David Young and Debbie Young. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Kathy Ledford v. David Young and Debbie Young)
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 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 SPECIAL TERM, 2011 2100579 Ex p a r t e D a v i d Young and D e b b i e Young PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS (In re: Kathy L e d f o r d v. D a v i d Young and D e b b i e (Randolph PITTMAN, Circuit CV-08-77) Judge. T h i s mandamus p e t i t i o n Randolph Court, Young) Circuit Court, c h a l l e n g e s an o r d e r e n t e r e d b y t h e entered on remand from this court's 2100579 decision i n Young v. 2009), setting factual and the in a second 37 trial So. in 3d the 832 previous was summarized (Ala. Civ. case. l e g a l b a c k g r o u n d n e c e s s a r y t o an mandamus p e t i t i o n the Ledford, in this App. Much the of understanding court's opinion appeal: " K a t h y L e d f o r d , who w i t h h e r h u s b a n d R o g e r owns a l o t i n R a n d o l p h County upon w h i c h a v a c a t i o n house is located, filed an action i n the trial court seeking a judgment declaring that she and her husband have the r i g h t to remove a p i n e t r e e t h a t , a c c o r d i n g t o a r e c e n t s u r v e y , l i e s on t h e b o u n d a r y b e t w e e n L e d f o r d ' s l o t and a l o t owned by D a v i d Young and D e b b i e Young. L e d f o r d a l l e g e d t h a t the t r e e , which is located slightly over 10 feet from L e d f o r d ' s h o u s e , 'poses a d a n g e r and t h r e a t t o ' t h a t h o u s e and that '[a] strong wind against the tree c o u l d c a u s e i t t o f a l l on t h e home a n d c o u l d c a u s e damage t o t h e [ h o u s e ] as w e l l as s e r i o u s i n j u r y t o any o c c u p a n t s . ' The Y o u n g s a d m i t t e d t h e l o c a t i o n o f t h e t r e e , b u t t h e y a v e r r e d t h a t t h e t r e e was 'a t r u e b o u n d a r y l i n e t r e e ' and c o n t e n d e d t h a t i t c o u l d n o t 'be h a r m e d o r c u t b y ' l a n d o w n e r s on e i t h e r s i d e o f the boundary line. After a brief ore tenus p r o c e e d i n g , d u r i n g which L e d f o r d , her husband, the Y o u n g s , and a f o r e s t e r r e t a i n e d by t h e Youngs a l l gave t e s t i m o n y , the t r i a l c o u r t e n t e r e d a judgment d e c l a r i n g t h a t L e d f o r d and h e r h u s b a n d c o u l d remove the tree at their convenience, taking steps to m i n i m i z e damage t o t h e Y o u n g s ' l o t . In p e r t i n e n t p a r t , the t r i a l c o u r t o p i n e d : "'[Ledford] and her husband w i s h to cut the t r e e because they are a f r a i d t h a t t h e t r e e w i l l f a l l on t h e i r home. I f the t r e e f a l l s on t h e i r home, s i n c e t h e t r e e i s l o c a t e d so c l o s e t o i t , t h e home w o u l d l i k e l y be s e v e r e l y d a m a g e d . Further, and 2 of 2100579 p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t l y , i f [ L e d f o r d a n d her h u s b a n d ] were a s l e e p o r even i n t h e i r home a n d t h e t r e e f e l l o n i t , [ t h e y ] o r a n y o n e l o c a t e d w i t h i n t h e home c o u l d s u f f e r serious i n j u r y or death. fl I " ' U n d e r A l a b a m a l a w , a l a n d o w n e r may remove any r o o t s o r l i m b s that protrude onto h i s p r o p e r t y w i t h o u t consequence, even i f t h e t r e e t h a t t h e r o o t s and limbs a r e attached to are located on another's property. Further, a l a n d owner h a s a r i g h t t o remove any t r e e s o r o t h e r g r o w t h on h i s p r o p e r t y u p t o t h e p r o p e r t y line, and t h i s r i g h t e x t e n d s t o t h e c e n t e r o f t h e earth and i n t o the sky. Thus, without recourse or consequence, [ L e d f o r d ] could cut i n t o t h e t r e e t o t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e and then c u t from that p o i n t t o t h e center o f t h e e a r t h a n d i n t o t h e s k y . B e c a u s e 19 inches of the tree's 28-inch diameter m e a s u r e m e n t i s l o c a t e d on [ L e d f o r d ' s ] s i d e of t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e , [ L e d f o r d ] , t h e r e f o r e , c o u l d c o m p l e t e l y remove more t h a n one h a l f o f t h e t r e e up t o h e r p r o p e r t y line. "'Since [ L e d f o r d ] u n q u e s t i o n a b l y has the r i g h t t o remove any p o r t i o n o f t h e t r e e t h a t i s l o c a t e d on h e r s i d e o f t h e p r o p e r t y l i n e and s i n c e d o i n g so w o u l d l i k e l y k i l l the t r e e , t h e Court i s o f t h e o p i n i o n t h a t [she] should be a l l o w e d to completely remove t h e t r e e t o e n s u r e t h a t h e r p r o p e r t y and t h e h e a l t h and w e l l being o f anyone l o c a t e d i n h e r home a r e p r o t e c t e d . ' " 3 2100579 37 So. 3d "[i]n at the 832-33. special We case a d j a c e n t l a n d o w n e r has by the other's reversed of desires in judgment" and court's judgment, could property of the the earth line and Youngs. and at boundary-line the manner action basis remove trunk the of Kathy the sky'" in the main o p i n i o n at 835-36 Moore, J . ) . noted that tree tree at the issue her and "posed to tree the to center that she issue in had contained a danger and case general not concurring 4 was Thompson on the because that whether constituted r u l e set specially, Kathy to its i n the a forth been l i t i g a t e d . evidence to to entitled merely this to the Judge determined Judge B r y a n c o n c u r r e d record the Judge M o o r e ) t h a t property" issue might apply" Further, had on at exception P.J., point ( j o i n e d by tried, tree at into Presiding contention in part, (Thompson, trial that However, boundary-line f o r w h i c h an the without incurring l i a b i l i t y "pleaded, Ledford's "boundary-line to "'cut from trumped trial properly cut each the not 835. been i s located, nuisance the had ... by contrary then that, suggested Ledford, noted i n his s p e c i a l concurrence the tree, that i n t o the Id. judgment, n o t i n g o w n e r s h i p r i g h t s t h a t c a n n o t be court's the a that Id. joined by result and i n d i c a t i n g that Ledford's house," 2100579 he would have v o t e d at 836 (Bryan, After to affirm J . , concurring this court's issued, Kathy Ledford court t h e judgment under review. " s e t another i n the r e s u l t ) . certificate filed of judgment a motion requesting hearing Id. to consider had been that the t r i a l a l l and a d d i t i o n a l evidence consistent with" this court's opinion i n the previous appeal. David objecting to Ledford's of a judgment in the previous set Young and favor appeal. a response a l s o moved f o r t h e e n t r y b a s e d upon t h i s On M a r c h court's opinion 16, 2 0 1 1 , t h e t r i a l t o take place court 12, 2 0 1 1 ; h o w e v e r , on M a r c h 2 9 , 2 0 1 1 , t h e Y o u n g s t i m e l y f i l e d a mandamus 16, trial filed on May petition for a Young m o t i o n ; they i n their the cause Debbie challenging the p r o p r i e t y of the t r i a l 2011, order concerning (see g e n e r a l l y Rule timeliness of petitions A w r i t o f mandamus w i l l issue 21(a), court's Ala. right an i m p e r a t i v e d u t y upon t h e r e s p o n d e n t t o p e r f o r m , and a refusal to the order invoked jurisdiction i s : 1) accompanied remedy; of the court.'"'" Q u e e n , 959 S o . 2 d 6 2 0 , 621 ( A l a . 2 0 0 6 ) 5 writs). s o u g h t ; 2) t o do s o ; 3) t h e l a c k o f a n o t h e r a d e q u a t e 4) p r o p e r l y parte i n the p e t i t i o n e r when t h e r e a clear legal by R. A p p . P., f o rextraordinary "'"'only March Ex ( q u o t i n g Ex p a r t e 2100579 McWilliams, Ex p a r t e 812 S o . 2 d 3 1 8 , 3 2 1 Carter, t u r n Ex p a r t e (Ala. earlier 807 S o . 2 d 5 3 4 , 536 United 1993)). Serv. S t a t i o n s , Although judgment jurisdiction ( A l a . 2001), was except ( A l a . 2001), within by v i r t u e from quoting the t r i a l this court's of i t s having in transferred jurisdiction to consider at 621 ( n o t i n g t h a t mandamus " i s t h e p r o p e r m e t h o d b y w h i c h t o bring before court, on an a p p e l l a t e remand, court Ex p a r t e court's appellate been p u r s u a n t t o A l a . C o d e 1 9 7 5 , ยง 1 2 - 2 - 7 ( 6 ) , we h a v e t h e Youngs' p e t i t i o n . i n turn I n c . , 628 S o . 2 d 5 0 1 , 503 the appeal not quoting the question has c o m p l i e d mandate" (emphasis pertinent material with 959 S o . 2 d whether the t r i a l the appellate court's added)). The Queen, petition within this may i t s discretion matter? decision court, and after contend to hold that an i n i t i a l court. appeal, proposition Although b y t h e mandamus we a second have leave no 6 another court's a trial hearing of the pertinent quarrel of law, a c a r e f u l review act trial in i t and t h a t may n o t h o l d without court an a p p e l l a t e as t o a l l m a t t e r s b e f o r e additional testimony appellate raised stated: D i d the t r i a l i n electing The Y o u n g s i sfinal take general s u c c i n c t l y be question with that of our d e c i s i o n 2100579 in the previous particular court's issue judgment unilaterally majority reverse[d] indicates formed was a d d r e s s e d , the located the t r i a l of court's of i . e . , whether side the trial could because the o f t h e common Based our former only the Ledford simply properties. i n t h e words that the basis on L e d f o r d ' s parties' " f o r further opinion." upon opinion, judgment p e r m i t t i n g scope this issues court's regarding adduced issues well consistent i n the previous nor the t r i a l to Ledford's evidence other court of the t r i a l danger proceedings that "we ... Ledford and with 37 S o . 3 d a t 835 ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d ) . special writings neither may had case h u s b a n d t o u n i l a t e r a l l y remove t h e t r e e , " and remanded t h e cause the i n this remove t h e b o u n d a r y - l i n e t r e e of conclusion, the that o f i t was boundary her appeal i n a second trial determinations by t h i s the make c l e a r has r u l e d 7 tree as t o t h o s e court's case. factual a further issues, previous upon poses to a nuisance; ultimate t o b e made i n t h i s that because of the l i m i t e d the boundary-line o r amounts upon In p a r t i c u l a r , judgment, home not resolved bear court, previous whether appeal [that] among opinion, and legal 2100579 As Ledford petition, this were existence of "requires 959 notes i n h e r answer t h e q u e s t i o n s we a d d r e s s e d case basis" correctly unquestionably a "recently further f o ra t r i a l i n the previous appeal i n of f i r s t announced testimony impression, legal tailored rightly warrant and t h e standard" to assure c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t on r e m a n d S o . 2 d a t 623) w i l l t o t h e Youngs' a that meaningful (Ex p a r t e Queen, affording that court some m e a s u r e o f d i s c r e t i o n i n c o n d u c t i n g " f u r t h e r proceedings" as m a n d a t e d b y t h i s at this point i nthe to control the exercise case, of issuance of a w r i t In our view, o f mandamus t h a t d i s c r e t i o n w o u l d be p r e m a t u r e . rel. Jones, ("mandamus, discretion, in court. 534 So. although will a particular 2d 615, i t will the manner a b s e n t Eady, remains to i n the previous case" 447 ( A l a . C i v . App. l i e t o compel an abuse in failing appeal now an 1987) exercise of addressed So. (Ala. 2d 778, 77 9 of that to p o i n t out that our therein, C i v . App. c o u r t and t h e p a r t i e s ' t h a t t h e new t r i a l ordered 8 discretion"). constitutes as t o t h e i s s u e s f o r the t r i a l ensure 616 n o t l i e t o compel t h e e x e r c i s e o f d i s c r e t i o n T h a t s a i d , we w o u l d b e r e m i s s decision See F i e l d s v . S t a t e e x the "law of see Erbe 1984 ) , legal by t h e t r i a l v. and i t advocates court does 2100579 not veer into areas of inquiry foreclosed by our p r e v i o u s decision. The Y o u n g s ' mandamus p e t i t i o n PETITION i s denied. DENIED. Thompson, P . J . , and B r y a n a n d Thomas, Moore, writing. J . , dissents, with 9 J J . , concur. 2100579 MOORE, J u d g e , dissenting. I respectfully dissent the petition his wife, court, for a writ o f mandamus Debbie Young. Kathy Ledford from t h e main o p i n i o n ' s In the complaint ("Ledford") support a claim of nuisance. So. Co., 2 d 9 3 2 , 946 filed filed i n the trial that would facts S e e , e . g . , B o y c e v . C a s s e s e , 941 ( A l a . 2006) (quoting of n u i s a n c e a p p l i e s ' " where t h e r e Ledford by D a v i d Young and alleged Borland 369 So. 2d 5 2 3 , 529 ( A l a . 1 9 7 9 ) ) interest denial of i n use and enjoyment v. Sanders (holding that Lead "'the law i s a n " ' i n t r u s i o n ... t o t h e of property'"). Specifically, alleged: "The pine t r e e poses a danger and t h r e a t t o [our] home. The t r e e i s l o c a t e d s l i g h t l y o v e r 10 f e e t f r o m [ o u r ] home. A strong wind against the tree could c a u s e i t t o f a l l on t h e home a n d c o u l d c a u s e damage to t h e home as w e l l as s e r i o u s i n j u r y t o any o c c u p a n t s o f t h e home." At the trial, there support o f and i n o p p o s i t i o n Specifically, asserted Ledford evidence regarding the tree posed t o her property Ledford's proximity of the tree damage presented both in to Ledford's nuisance a l l e g a t i o n . testified property. previous was husband, Roger, to their to the tree, and t o persons testified home, the size the present 10 t h e danger t h a t she on h e r regarding the of the tree, appearance of the 2100579 tree, and t h e danger t h a t property and testified regarding had t o save of taken the tree Morris, persons on the tree, since that a registered the tree, the likelihood that entered were into the issue already been already decide e.g., heard have fall a i f he w e r e various that Ex issue parte called witness. on Jim Morris damage t o house, the Ledfords' with problem the tree i n the p o s i t i o n of the photographs evidence on r e m a n d a full the t r i a l and because 959 issue, conducting So. court and n o t i n g opportunity the pine on t h a t without Queen, that whether pleaded, evidence (holding had also to the Ledfords' would she of the health of the tree, previous would also Young of the tree evidence. Because has Youngs of the tree on t h e p r o p e r t y There The the tree he Debbie and h e r o b s e r v a n c e time. the proximity Ledfords. property. damage t o t h e t r e e , t h e s t e p s the health and whether the tree posed to t h e i r f o r e s t e r , as an e x p e r t regarding remaining their previous testified house, he a s s e r t e d 2d a the t r i a l nuisance court court a trial. 620, second 622-23 has should See, ( A l a . 2006) i n taking the p a r t i e s to offer evidence" 11 was the t r i a l had e r r e d that tree additional had regarding "already the issue 2100579 to be decided Youngs' court on petition to enter remand). Accordingly, for a writ a judgment I would o f mandamus a n d d i r e c t b a s e d on t h e e x i s t i n g 12 grant the record. the trial
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.
