Roger Phillips and Annette Phillips v. Water Works & Sewer Board of the Town of Ariton

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

Rel 07/17/2009 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 , 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 ( ( 3 3 4 ) 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 . SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA SPECIAL TERM, 2009 1060350 Roger P h i l l i p s and A n n e t t e Phillips v. Water Works and Sewer B o a r d Appeal PER from Dale C i r c u i t (CV-05-113) Court CURIAM. Roger judgment against ("the o f t h e Town o f A r i t o n Phillips entered and Annette against t h e Water Works Board"), alleging them Phillips i n an a c t i o n appeal they from a instituted a n d S e w e r B o a r d o f t h e Town o f A r i t o n that the Board "improperly allowed 1060350 third parties deeded and t o use an to the Board." that the P h i l l i p s [ e s ] Phillipses' brief, In and to landowners, construct on the the Phillipses property a the land from purchase the P h i l l i p s e s a l l the lagoon Jones's from land Board planned to use Board's p l a n n e d use would over Phillipses treatment The a from plant Board Jones, included land running front the interfering and the i t s plans of the objected The prohibiting f o r the Board the sewage- lagoon. and with yard. Phillipses' of the easement, the P h i l l i p s e s injunction to plant H o w e v e r , upon l e a r n i n g preliminary in plant planned have and t h r e a t e n e d t o i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e B o a r d ' s p l a n s . sought from to purchasing the P h i l l i p s e s ' easement t o l a y a sewage p i p e l i n e . Prior Phillipses' from the Ed sewage-treatment purchase the yards and acres J o n e s , the Board f o r the the over 300-400 and needed J o n e s , and easement approximately then reverse sewage-treatment l a g o o n t o s e r v e t h e Town o f A r i t o n . land We a p p r o x i m a t e l y 20 and The 1. Procedural History 1996, the Board purchased adjoining order and at [had] remand. Facts two easement Phillipses 2 negotiated a settlement 1060350 pursuant to which the Board would purchase from the approximately treatment location one-half plant and the l a g o o n and on t h e P h i l l i p s e s ' dismissed. The Phillipses to land deed the needed a new for easement property. The Phillipses the in a Board's sewagedifferent action was the conveying the property from included the following pertinent Board language: "[T]he [ P h i l l i p s e s do] hereby g r a n t , b a r g a i n , s e l l and c o n v e y u n t o [ t h e B o a r d ] t h e f o l l o w i n g d e s c r i b e d r e a l e s t a t e ... : "Easement: A permanent 20 i n g r e s s / e g r e s s and u t i l i t y easement The to purpose and o f t h e e a s e m e n t was from the sewage-treatment the lagoon plant and on which lagoon the Board i t was and to wide to travel constructing "get a pipeline the to system." Although Phillipses' landlocked, property to allow feet " Jones land 1 once had to a gain access the separate Phillipses to easement his granted over the land, which was the Board the On A u g u s t 2 8 , 1 9 8 5 , i n l i t i g a t i o n b e t w e e n t h e P h i l l i p s e s and J o n e s , t h e D a l e C i r c u i t C o u r t f o u n d t h a t " t h e P h i l l i p s [ e s ] a d m i t t h a t a r i g h t o f i n g r e s s and e g r e s s e x i s t s o v e r t h e i r l a n d s t o t h e J o n e s l a n d on t h e f a r m o r f i e l d r o a d " a n d t h a t " t h e r i g h t o f i n g r e s s a n d e g r e s s o v e r ... t h e P h i l l i p s l a n d on 1 3 1060350 easement, could access occurred to Jones began u s i n g send his land involving a letter guidelines the Board's easement, by w h i c h directly. In an more the Board's to the f o r the use 2003, easement t h a t Phillipses and of the easement. incident caused the Board Jones The he setting letter forth stated: " T h e r e h a s b e e n some q u e s t i o n a b o u t t h e u s e o f the sewer l a g o o n r o a d . Ronnie Danner, Chairman of [the Board,] met with attorney Henry Steagall c o n c e r n i n g t h e u t i l i t y e a s e m e n t s on t h e s e w e r r o a d g o i n g t o the A r i t o n sewer l a g o o n . A c c o r d i n g t o the deeds o f each p a r t y ( E d J o n e s and Roger Phillips) e a c h s h o u l d be g i v e n t h e r i g h t t o e g r e s s a n d i n g r e s s to t h e i r p r o p e r t i e s and any p e r s o n g i v e n written permission by each p a r t y [ ] (Ed Jones or Roger Phillips). No p a r t y i s t o l e a v e t h e r i g h t - [ o f ] - w a y u n t i l he o r s h e i s on t h e r i g h t p r o p e r t y . No 4w h e e l e r s on s e w e r r o a d , o r b i g h e a v y t r u c k s , p l e a s e . " A t t o r n e y H e n r y B. S t e a g a l l r e c o m m e n d s t o t h e B o a r d t o g i v e Ed J o n e s and any p e r s o n w i t h w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n f r o m Mr. E d J o n e s t o go t o a n d f r o m t h e Jones property. " A f t e r some d i s c u s s i o n t h e B o a r d m o v e d t o h e r e ¬ by a u t h o r i z e [ ] Ed J o n e s t h e p r i v i l e g e t o use t h e A r i t o n sewer r o a d t o e g r e s s and i n g r e s s h i s p r o p e r t y and any p e r s o n s g i v e n w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n by Mr. Jones. The p a r t i e s must n o t g e t o f f t h e r i g h t - [ o f ] way until they have reach[ed] Mr. Jones'[s] property. A l l g a t e s m u s t be o p e n e d a n d c l o s e d a n d l o c k e d when p a s s i n g t h r o u g h . " On the May 6, farm or f i e l d 2005, the Phillipses sued the road i s appurtenant to the Jones 4 Board, land." 1060350 c h a l l e n g i n g the Board's a u t h o r i t y t o a l l o w J o n e s , and whomever Jones a u t h o r i z e d , use of the Board's alleged third parties deeded 2005, the i n their complaint that the Board August at On which 28, 2006, third i t s answer, August ore 1, tenus that parties "improperly allowed denying 2006, a t 1. On J u l y 6, the a l l e g a t i o n s of the t r i a l evidence was t o use t h e easement f o r purposes of the sewage-treatment the judgment The P h i l l i p s e s court 1992), of Marvin's, this the motion other filed a motion for a on O c t o b e r 16, appealed. I n c . v. Court discussed a judgment on p l a n t and or, i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , denied Standard In and to allow o r amend 2006. a t h e Board had the a u t h o r i t y to the t r i a l held holding, On S e p t e m b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e P h i l l i p s e s t r i a l ; court presented lagoon. new Phillipses f o r the Board, than t h e use and maintenance alter The the P h i l l i p s [ e s ] [ h a d ] brief, e n t e r e d a judgment among o t h e r t h i n g s , certain that Phillipses' filed complaint. hearing the Board t o u s e an e a s e m e n t to the Board." easement. of a t r i a l of Review Robertson, 608 the applicable court based So. 2d 391 ( A l a . standard of review on o r e t e n u s evidence: "Where o r e t e n u s e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d t o t h e t r i a l c o u r t , a p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e 5 1060350 court's conclusions on issues of fact; its determination will n o t be d i s t u r b e d u n l e s s i t is clearly erroneous, without supporting evidence, m a n i f e s t l y u n j u s t , or a g a i n s t the g r e a t w e i g h t of the evidence. G a s t o n v . Ames, 514 So. 2d 877 , 878 (Ala. 1 9 8 7 ) ; C o u g a r M i n i n g Co. v . M i n e r a l L a n d & Mining Consultants, Inc., 392 So. 2d 1177 (Ala. 1 9 8 1 ) . The j u d g m e n t o f a t r i a l c o u r t b a s e d on ore t e n u s e v i d e n c e i s p r e s u m e d c o r r e c t , and i t s f i n d i n g s 'will n o t be d i s t u r b e d on a p p e a l unless they are palpably wrong, manifestly unjust, or without s u p p o r t i n g e v i d e n c e . ' M c C o y v . M c C o y , 549 So. 2 d 5 3 , 57 ( A l a . 1989). However, when the trial court improperly applies the law to the facts, no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s e x i s t s as t o t h e c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t . G a s t o n , s u p r a ; S m i t h v. S t y l e A d v e r t i s i n g , Inc., 470 So. 2d 1194 (Ala. 1985); League v. M c D o n a l d , 355 So. 2 d 695 (Ala. 1978)." 608 So. 2d at 393. Issues Initially, Board's we note authority to purposes r e l a t e d to treatment p l a n t and the court's trial allow for that allow the lagoon. holding The t B o a r d may r e l a t e d to p l a n t and 2 unrelated 2 p a r t i e s do anyone and to the third the use not the maintenance Rather, that to Analysis the use certain unaffiliated purposes and the of the p a r t i e s t o use and the easement for the Phillipses B o a r d has use dispute sewagechallenge a u t h o r i t y to the maintenance easement of the r i a l c o u r t h e l d , i n p e r t i n e n t p a r t , " [ t ] h a t the a l l o w anyone t o use the easement f o r p u r p o s e s t h e use o f and m a i n t a i n i n g of t h e sewage treatment lagoon." 6 1060350 sewage-treatment plant First, be P., the considered to court authority Phillipses amended by conform enter and a to to the lagoon. argue operation evidence lagoon whether the third with, or not party Phillipses Jones, a Board, sewer alleged third to use requested "a party employed held not pipeline. the affiliated i n i t s order, has the to with, use sewage-treatment their plant complaint, allowed with or by employed The B o a r d ] from using [ i t s ] parties." The part: 3 supra note 1. 7 the Phillipses "2. T h a t t h e B o a r d s h a l l be p e r m i t t e d t o a l l o w Ed J o n e s t o use the easement i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h the conditions and guidelines as agreed to and in a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h e j u d g m e n t o f A u g u s t 28, 1985.[ ]" See the improperly "1. That the [Board] shall not let third p a r t i e s who are not a f f i l i a t e d w i t h or associated w i t h o r e m p l o y e d by t h e B o a r d or t h i r d p a r t i e s who a r e n o t an a d j a c e n t o r a b u t t i n g l a n d o w n e r s u s e the easement. 3 its had third in pertinent the Board Board easement. [the egress of the In Board decree p r o h i b i t i n g and by Civ. that is unaffiliated to the i t s ingress/egress easement f o r i n g r e s s court that who should A l a . R. a request any the of Rule 15(b), declaring judgment or complaint include easement f o r purposes u n r e l a t e d and their to allow unassociated that trial 1060350 Therefore, is e v i d e n c e d by the t r i a l court's unnecessary to address the P h i l l i p s e s ' Civ. an as P., argument because assertion to that Rule the P h i l l i p s e s ' effect and the final order, 15(b), complaint trial court i t A l a . R. contained decided the issue. Next, the the P h i l l i p s e s extent authority the the t r i a l court erred to held that Board has the to allow easement," that i t held Jones t o use and that i t implicitly that argue " a d j a c e n t or a b u t t i n g which that the would the as judgment of August Board 28, by land conveyed them their business lagoon. argue and p e r s o n who owner." We an Jones, the and express i t s agents may use "such an to brief, the at easement and However, not i s n o t an e m p l o y e e o r a g e n t agree. 8 extent allow the Ed conditions with appurtenant that [of] agree that the their to the Board, i t s i n conducting sewage-treatment does the "to the the easement 20. use accordance easement Board to with The P h i l l i p s e s the related and authority in to Phillipses' that to 1985." i s burdened by has landowners i n accordance agreed land employees, include easement guidelines the the devolve plant and Phillipses to of the dominant a third estate 1060350 If an easement particular tract of land i t can granted not be "'for used to the appurtenant benefit of other 941 2d 263, So. 385, Louisville 853 (1903)). their use cannot be 124 So. only thereby to So. 2d 93, the 99 the for some other having use a quoting 571, Lay, 34 271 West So. 852, confined they are When intended they cannot reach other I n Loveman v. easement The and over the abutting used dominant his The to 137 granted, Ala. his of two estate, estate servient but not owner a l l o w e d property allowing at a dominant e s t a t e owner a l s o owned a p i e c e dominant by West, supra, dominant benefit estate lands." properties dominant e s t a t e easement. be Lay, premises, the Inc., in turn [easements] are which right i t for Loveman v. A l a . 568, grantees. particular some Wolf Creek Indus., (1960), 137 of in and to give be used 853. at to by not (quoting "[p]rivate purposes "'One can Weeks v . & N a s h v i l l e R.R., extended access land ( A l a . 2006) Further, to certain land.'"'" 269 392, v. to benefit accommodate of l a n d a d j o i n i n g or l y i n g beyond. way Ala. is coal 9 adjoining to be 571-72, 34 owner had an estate of l a n d adjoining adjacent the and brought owners. to easement abutting in over the to the the 1060350 easement to heat abutting t h e dominant sought the buildings injunctive on estate. adjoining servient estate owners and t h i s Court determined that "the f o r the purpose of heating the b u i l d i n g o r b u i l d i n g s west o f t h e [dominant e s t a t e ] be enjoined," "[i]f the land[,] land at 271 A l a . a t 3 9 3 , 124 [easement] i s f o r the benefit a d j o i n i n g or l y i n g beyond." the present case, 99, o f some because, particular 271 A l a . a t 3 9 2 , 124 S o . 2 d Phillipses in relation as d e t e r m i n e d by t h e t r i a l granted the Board Jones t o use adjoins entirely an e a s e m e n t the Board to allow i t s easement and l i e s beyond unrelated and t h i r d p a r t i e s t o use o f t h e sewage The B o a r d has a t t e m p t e d t o a l l o w to benefit the Board's to the Board's sewage-treatment p l a n t and l a g o o n . erred that i n holding court, f o r ingress t o " t h e use o f and m a i n t [ e n a n c e ] t r e a t m e n t p l a n t and l a g o o n . " its 2d a t 99. e g r e s s and a u t h o r i z e d it So. should i t c a n n o t b e u s e d t o a c c o m m o d a t e some o t h e r t r a c t o f In the and o f c o a l over t h e [easement] hauling relief, The the land the Board Jones's property, land, which f o r purposes use and maintenance Therefore, the t r i a l of the court has t h e a u t h o r i t y t o e n l a r g e easement t o b e n e f i t J o n e s ' s l a n d by a l l o w i n g Jones andh i s 10 1060350 "family, servants, agents, employees, licensees to use i t s easement " i n accordance w i t h 28, 1985," the judgment easement. Allowing authorizing Jones, use that the Board be t o a l l o w Jones enlarge and whomever J o n e s t h e easement would the judgment of August awarded to or guest[s]" his original i t s easement i n turn authorizes, the Board's by to e a s e m e n t t o be u s e d t o accommodate l a n d t h a t i s a d j o i n i n g o r l y i n g beyond t h e dominant estate. This t h e law does n o t a l l o w . Conclusion Based reversed on to the extent authority the the foregoing, to allow that the t r i a l i t held court's that "adjacent or abutting judgment i s the Board landowners has t h e use [ o f ] easement," which i n c l u d e s J o n e s , and t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t i t held that use the the Board easement has t h e a u t h o r i t y in accordance "to allow with the conditions g u i d e l i n e s as a g r e e d t o and i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h August 28, consistent 1985," with REVERSED Cobb, Parker, and t h e case this AND to and the judgment of f o r proceedings opinion. REMANDED. C . J . , and Murdock, i s remanded Ed Jones Lyons, Woodall, Stuart, a n d Shaw, J J . , c o n c u r . 11 Smith, Bolin,

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.