Angela Young Purser v. Solid Ground Development, LLC
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
REL: 03/12/2010 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 ( ( 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 OCTOBER TERM, 2009-2010 1081615 Angela Young Purser v. Solid Appeal STUART, Court. from Shelby C i r c u i t (CV-07-277) Court Justice. Angela sued Ground Development, LLC Solid Young Purser Ground Purser and h e r b r o t h e r , Alton Young, J r . , Development, LLC, i n t h e Shelby alleged that Solid d r a i n e d a l a k e on p r o p e r t y i t owned Ground adjacent Circuit had u n l a w f u l l y to her property, 1081615 thereby interfering as as c a u s i n g well dry; Young, changed The trial h e r use and enjoyment o f t h a t a smaller J r . ,alleged the flow now f l o o d e d with court that of runoff whenever there lake on h e r p r o p e r t y Solid water such that G r o u n d on b o t h c l a i m s . go actions had h i s property was amounts of rain. of Solid Purser substantial to also a summary j u d g m e n t i n f a v o r entered were Ground's lake, now a p p e a l s t h a t j u d g m e n t . 1 We affirm. I. In June 1965, P u r s e r ' s f r o m two s e p a r a t e s e l l e r s approximately land i n Alabaster. property months Sr. later, alleges that the Rutherfords the Young surveying services with not challenge 2 b a c k t o Young, Young, compensation the construction on was f o r the enjoyment of and t h a t as p a r t i a l associated who, some of these t r a n s a c t i o n s a lake families of land 'Young, J r . , d o e s against him. of the land the object to construct and R u t h e r f o r d t h e two a c r e s of contiguous and W i l l i e R u t h e r f o r d , c o n v e y e d two a c r e s for 37 acres T h a t same m o n t h , Y o u n g , S r . , c o n v e y e d t h a t t o Waymon R u t h e r f o r d Purser given f a t h e r , A l t o n Young, S r . , a c q u i r e d appeal S r . , was for his of that the judgment 1081615 lake. The R u t h e r f o r d s construct a lake d i d i n fact on t h e i r In a p p r o x i m a t e l y thereafter build a dam a n d property. 1975, Young, S r . , conveyed a p o r t i o n o f the property he h a d r e c e i v e d f r o m the Rutherfords The p r o p e r t y he c o n v e y e d t o P u r s e r was n o t l a k e f r o n t p r o p e r t y ; h o w e v e r , on O c t o b e r 3 1 , 1 9 8 0 , P u r s e r p u r c h a s e d property which from did actually Willie include formed Rutherford lakefront part of -- Waymon property the lake and bed. to Purser. some was deceased some In additional of -¬ which 1989, Purser conveyed a p o r t i o n o f h e r n o n - l a k e f r o n t p r o p e r t y t o Young, J r . On February 4, 1991, the estate of Willie Rutherford conveyed t h e r e s t of t h e p r o p e r t y conveyed by Young, S r . , t h a t she owned a t h e r d e a t h began t o Raymond W i l s o n . c o n s t r u c t i o n of a road extended along h i s property around line, Wilson subsequently the property. and, because P u r s e r p o r t i o n of the southeastern part of the lake, Wilson construct an elevated road bed through p r o p e r t y l i n e he s h a r e d w i t h P u r s e r . effectively the Wilson Purser the lake opposed and a s m a l l e r the planned road 3 road owned a sought t o along the That road bed would have b i s e c t e d the lake, r e s u l t i n g property That lake through i n a larger on P u r s e r ' s lake on property. the l a k e , and, after 1081615 construction on i t began, alleging, among underwater and 1998, she agreed edge maintain road encroached upon her claims roadbed the road b e d was lake things, settled the with finished, entirely filed other t o an e a s e m e n t of she on a that her the against Wilson there Wilson's property September f o r $30,000 underwater him lakes and one After -- one smaller by p i p e s b u i l t the between that allowed water to t r a v e l to the larger e n t i r e l y on P u r s e r ' s p r o p e r t y -- c o n n e c t e d roadbed and the not d i r t . e x i s t e d two sloped requiring but g r a v e l or stone, stop i t , In 2 t o keep property to roadbed her p r o p e r t y . allowing Wilson on lawsuit lake into the l a k e s . The l a k e on P u r s e r ' s p r o p e r t y was d e p e n d e n t u p o n w a t e r f l o w i n g through those pipes from the l a r g e r l a k e to m a i n t a i n i t s water level. In January 2005, S o l i d Ground p u r c h a s e d owned b y W i l s o n with plans of Solid those allowing plans, the lake on to e v e n t u a l l y develop Ground property, opened i t s property drained, water flowed through Purser's causing the property t h e dam to on drain. the pipes running the water level i t . As once part i t s property, As the lake t o t h e l a k e on on t h a t lake also I t i s n o t c l e a r f r o m t h e r e c o r d i n t h i s case e x a c t l y what claims Purser a l l e g e d against Wilson i n the e a r l i e r a c t i o n . 2 4 1081615 to drop substantially. Ground i n the Shelby On M a r c h 20, 2007, C i r c u i t Court, Purser alleging sued that Solid Solid Ground had i r r e v o c a b l y i m p a i r e d h e r use and enjoyment o f t h e o r i g i n a l lake the and a s k i n g lake Ground on the Solid to i t soriginal complaint and, h a d no r i g h t Ground to restore condition. after a arguing period that on S o l i d t o compel property i t to maintain a connected court Ground's lake and t h a t a lake on h e r p r o p e r t y . entered On the t r i a l Solid G r o u n d , n o t i n g t h a t t h e j u d g m e n t was s u p p o r t e d a summary j u d g m e n t b y t h e a r g u m e n t s made b y S o l i d result ensuing denied P., Purser Purser March of Purser's motion previous to a l t e r , not only Ground i n i t s summary-judgment action against amend, or vacate by o p e r a t i o n of law pursuant and she f i l e d this appeal 12, i n favor of b u t a l s o by t h e d o c t r i n e o f c o l l a t e r a l e s t o p p e l to Rule Wilson. t h e judgment was 5 9 . 1 , A l a . R. C i v . on A u g u s t 2 1 , 2 0 0 9 . " T h i s C o u r t ' s r e v i e w o f a s u m m a r y j u d g m e n t i s de W i l l i a m s v. S t a t e Farm Mut. A u t o . I n s . Co., 5 as a Purser's II. novo. of on i t s p r o p e r t y 2009, motion, Solid e n t i t l i n g h e r t o t h e use and enjoyment o f a l a k e was e n t i r e l y benefit to require moved f o r a summary j u d g m e n t , h a d no r i g h t to i t sp r o p e r t y answered discovery, that the court 1081615 8 8 6 So. 2 d 72 , 74 ( A l a . 2 0 0 3 ) . We a p p l y t h e same standard o f r e v i e w as the t r i a l court applied. S p e c i f i c a l l y , we m u s t d e t e r m i n e w h e t h e r t h e m o v a n t h a s made a p r i m a f a c i e s h o w i n g t h a t no g e n u i n e i s s u e of material fact exists and that t h e movant i s e n t i t l e d t o a j u d g m e n t as a m a t t e r o f l a w . Rule 5 6(c), A l a . R. C i v . P.; B l u e C r o s s & B l u e S h i e l d o f A l a b a m a v . H o d u r s k i , 899 So. 2 d 9 4 9 , 9 5 2 - 5 3 ( A l a . 2004). I n m a k i n g s u c h a d e t e r m i n a t i o n , we must r e v i e w t h e e v i d e n c e i n t h e l i g h t most f a v o r a b l e t o t h e n o n m o v a n t . W i l s o n v . B r o w n , 496 So. 2d 7 5 6 , 758 (Ala. 1986). Once t h e movant makes a p r i m a facie s h o w i n g t h a t t h e r e i s no g e n u i n e i s s u e o f m a t e r i a l f a c t , the burden t h e n s h i f t s t o the nonmovant t o produce ' s u b s t a n t i a l e v i d e n c e ' as t o t h e e x i s t e n c e of a genuine issue of m a t e r i a l fact. Bass v. S o u t h T r u s t B a n k o f B a l d w i n C o u n t y , 538 So. 2d 7 9 4 , 797-98 ( A l a . 1 9 8 9 ) ; A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 2 1 - 1 2 . " Dow v. (Ala. Alabama Democratic Party, 897 So. 2d 1035, 1038-39 2004). III. In this has Wehby v . Court c o n s i d e r e d , as control lake, issue, issue 1243, 1246 of f i r s t by lake After reached we by adopted bed is owned r e v i e w i n g the n a v i g a b l e as two the m a j o r i t y a matter of 6 "who adjoining Alabama had common-law r u l e have 1998), nonnavigable more that artificial law, or relevant other j u r i s d i c t i o n s (Ala. impression, the owners of l a n d e x t e n d i n g beneath not 2d of a p r i v a t e landowners." the an So. over the s u r f a c e waters when decisions T u r p i n , 710 law and considered that "the o r man-made l a k e s , surface-water rights 1081615 only As i n the surface applied right i n this waters case, t o use and e n j o y above this l a y upon her property the larger lake notwithstanding have a l l o w e d property or part a n d he roadbed that acted Purser lake original lake level and/or her property. had to drain to this that Court that a whole, may now on t h e Solid t o use and e n j o y on h i s p r o p e r t y he a s he erected t h e two the right t o do and i t a c t e d the smaller as i t within i t s lake. that s h e h a d an e a s e m e n t Ground to maintain However, t h e r e c o r d supporting rights i n her t o use the e n t i r e t y of the requiring Solid i n order lake Wilson, and c r e a t e d on i t s p r o p e r t y , rights entitling original Conversely, lying had a and W i l s o n h i s r i g h t s when similarly now a r g u e s equitable evidence lake Ground i telected as of the lake had the r i g h t the lake rights on Ground. within the lake when lake the Rutherfords bisected Solid Purser of the o r i g i n a l original in title, wished with or the Solid I d . a t 1249. -- s h e h a d no p r o p e r t y of the o r i g i n a l wanted, lakes. part her f r e e use of that p a r t Ground's p r e d e c e s s o r that that the fact that owned b y land." rule dictates that only that their assertion. 7 to maintain the l e v e l contains the of the lake no d o c u m e n t a r y Moreover, the record 1081615 contains to no e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t i n g t h a t P u r s e r the t r i a l Purser might summary the court. have [Purser] was "This Court on evidence App. also cannot and consider rather, Ground's motion to alter, issue review considered v. Robinson, 510 of the persuaded there that that trial to of the record i s any l e g a l S o l i d Ground t o m a i n t a i n (Ala. 8 3 4 , 835 of fact." first to the court." 1992). (Ala. the appellant support before basis that f o r the the by proved i s restricted So. 2d record or vacate of material by for a presented raised ("It i s the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y enough amend, "the evidence arguments our argument any m o t i o n O i l C o . , 612 S o . 2 d 4 0 9 , 410 In l i g h t Civ. to the issues u s , we are not on w h i c h t h e l a k e on i t s p r o p e r t y to require f o r Purser's and enjoyment. To t h e e x t e n t be Solid of a genuine presented."). use that not contain and o f such w e i g h t arguments State 1987) provide only an e x i s t e n c e appeal; does opposing substantial Andrews v. M e r r i t t See record and h e r m o t i o n states was there time filed judgment, judgment The made t h i s required maintain Purser to restore the water a l s o argues t h a t S o l i d Ground the lake level on i t s p r o p e r t y of the lake 8 on should i n order her property, to her 1081615 argument i s not Floyd, 416 approval So. the supported 2d 404, by 404 the a p p l i c a b l e law. ( A l a . 1982), t h i s f o l l o w i n g from the appellants' In B a i l e y v. Court quoted with brief: " ' I f the l a n d i s i n s i d e a c o r p o r a t e l i m i t , the a p p l i c a b l e r u l e o f l a w i s c a l l e d t h e common-enemy doctrine. I t i s d i a m e t r i c a l l y opposed to the c i v i l law r u l e and allows each landowner to use his property as he p l e a s e s . E a c h l a n d owner has an unqualified right to d i v e r t the surface waters without incurring legal consequences while other l a n d o w n e r s p o s s e s s t h e d u t y and r i g h t to p r o t e c t themselves from the e f f e c t s of this diversion. A n n o t . 93 A . L . R . 3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1199 (1979).'" Because a l l the p r o p e r t y municipal limits of the at i s s u e i n t h i s City of e n t i t l e d t o d i v e r t t h e w a t e r on the e f f e c t argument case l i e s Alabaster, i t s property within the Solid Ground is without regard to t h a t d i v e r s i o n w i l l h a v e on P u r s e r ' s Purser makes t o the contrary is property. Any unfounded. IV. The Purser summary j u d g m e n t and applicable in law. favor of entered Solid Accordingly, by the Ground that trial is judgment court supported is Murdock, and Lyons J . , concurs and Bolin, i n the 9 J J . , concur. result. by affirmed. AFFIRMED. Cobb, C.J., against the 1081615 MURDOCK, J u s t i c e (concurring i n the r e s u l t ) . A n g e l a Young P u r s e r t a k e s t h e p o s i t i o n had an i m p l i e d easement o r an e q u i t a b l e r i g h t entitling lake o f some nature her to l a t e r a l support f o r the maintenance o f the level on her property. argument f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n the on a p p e a l t h a t she Because no persuasive i s properly before result. 10 legal us, I concur i n
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.
