An action was brought by David L. Buck and Christopher L. Buck against James W. Avent, his wife Bernadine, and son Timmy Avent in the Chancery Court for Hardeman County, seeking to establish an easement over an old logging road on the defendants' property. The plaintiffs’ property is landlocked and historically accessed via this road, which was blocked by the defendants after improvements in 1998. The trial court found that the plaintiffs established both a prescriptive and an implied easement, ordering the defendants to restore the property to its original state and to define the exact property boundaries. The defendants appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the establishment of the easement but reversed part of the trial court’s order, remanding the case to allow further evidence on the boundary lines. The properties involved consist of six tracts, originally one piece of land, divided in 1933, with the Bucks owning four noncontiguous tracts and the Avents owning Tract 3. Tract 4, which is landlocked, requires access via the logging road that runs through the Avents' property. The road begins as a public road along the Bucks’ and Avents’ shared border and transitions to a private road on the southeastern border of Tract 3 before continuing to Tract 4.
The road in question splits, with one side leading east through the Avents' property, known as "the Story tract," towards the Hatchie River, while the other side traverses Tract 3 to Tract 4. The disputed segment lies on Tract 3 and was originally a flat logging road. In 1998, the Avents modified this section by digging a ditch on the road's west side, effectively raising the roadbed by about four feet and preventing vehicular access to Tract 4 from Tract 5, which the Bucks claim blocked their use of the old logging road. The Bucks filed a lawsuit on December 21, 1999, alleging that the Avents' modifications constituted the construction of a levee, partially on their property, and infringed upon their prescriptive rights to the roadway, which they and their predecessors had used for over twenty years. The Bucks also sought damages, claiming the Avents used soil from their property to create the levee and requested restoration of their land to its prior condition. The Avents denied the allegations and contended that the Bucks had no easement. During the trial on October 3, 2001, surveyor James Wiles testified, confirming the boundaries of the properties and asserting that the raised road and ditch effectively made access to Tract 4 impossible without a bridge. David Buck also testified about his family's historical ownership of the land and provided photographic evidence illustrating the impracticality of crossing the modified road.
Buck disputed James Avent's claims regarding permission to dig on the Bucks’ land for road construction. He testified about his family's long-standing use of an old logging road to access Tract 4, asserting they had utilized it since 1933, primarily on foot or by mule before it became drivable in 1977. Buck noted that this access was unimpeded until 1998, when Avent started constructing a levee, which obstructed his access. Buck claimed that, although he never formally discussed road usage with Avent, he assumed he had the right to use it. He acknowledged that while he personally did not request permission for logging equipment, a timber cruiser handled that communication with Avent. Buck admitted that both he and Avent recognized the road as belonging to Avent, who had granted him the right to use it. He expressed that since the levee’s construction, he has been unable to access Tract 4. Witnesses Jimmy Eubanks and David Clark corroborated Buck's testimony about their historical use of the road until access was blocked by Avent's construction. Avent, who purchased Tract 3 in the mid-1970s, confirmed he was aware of the Bucks' prior use of the old logging road and recounted an incident where he denied permission for a timber company to use the road without compensation, ultimately receiving $2,000 for access. Avent clarified that his construction was not a levee but an elevated road, differing from the traditional definition of a levee.
Avent constructed a road to enhance its utility, claiming he only used a small amount of dirt from the Bucks' property and believed the road did not encroach on their land. He admitted to creating a ditch for drainage, which complicated the Bucks' access to Tract 4, despite permitting their use of the road when dry. Following the trial, the court ruled in favor of the Bucks, affirming their rights to an easement by implication and a prescriptive easement over the old logging road. The court ordered the Avents to restore the Bucks' property and reconfigure the road to avoid encroachment, with the Bucks' surveyor tasked to determine the exact boundary line. The Avents challenged the trial court's findings on appeal, arguing that the Bucks' use was permissive, contested the evidence supporting the easements, and objected to the surveyor serving as a Special Master. The appeal reviews factual findings with a presumption of correctness and legal questions de novo. The document also summarizes the law of easements in Tennessee, highlighting various methods of creation, including implied and prescriptive easements.
Easements in gross are defined as personal rights to use another's land without benefiting any other property, typically involving a single parcel. In contrast, an easement appurtenant involves two properties, where the owner of the dominant tract seeks to use the servient tract for their benefit. This case concerns an easement appurtenant, with the Bucks seeking an easement over the Avents' land. The trial court determined that the Bucks' easement was established through both prescription and implication.
To establish a prescriptive easement, the plaintiff must demonstrate that their use is adverse, continuous, open, visible, exclusive, and known to the servient owner for a period of 20 years, as per Tennessee law. The use must be under a claim of right; if the dominant tract owner uses the servient property with permission, the use is deemed permissive and cannot support a prescriptive easement. The burden of proof lies with the party seeking the easement.
The Avents challenged the trial court's conclusion on appeal, arguing that the court applied the incorrect legal standard regarding the "adverse claim of right." They contended that a legal presumption exists that the usage is permissive. The trial court distinguished between permission and knowledge/acquiescence, asserting that for use to be considered adverse, it must be inconsistent with the servient owner's interests and not easily explained without presuming a grant.
The trial court highlighted a conflict between the concepts of "knowledge and acquiescence" by the property owner and the distinction between "adverse use" and "permissive use." It stated that merely not objecting to use does not equate to granting permission, which could allow legal title holders to easily defeat adverse claims. The Avents contended that there is a presumption of permissive use, as established in Blakemore v. Matthews, which arises when individuals use a neighbor's private road together. However, the court found no evidence that the Bucks ever traveled the old logging road with the Avents, rendering the presumption inapplicable. Despite the trial court affirming the standard for an adverse claim of right, the Avents argued that the Bucks failed to prove their use was adverse. The trial court noted a lack of evidence showing that the Bucks sought permission from the Avents or their predecessors, and while Mr. Buck acknowledged that the Avents owned the road, he also indicated that they used it without permission for many years. This usage included times before the Avents acquired the property. Witnesses supported Buck's claim that he and his family had used the road since 1933, indicating an assumption of right to access it. Ultimately, the court concluded that the Bucks demonstrated an adverse claim of right to the logging road based on their history of usage without objection from the Avents.
Buck and his friend Jimmy Eubanks provided unrebutted testimony indicating that they consistently used an old logging road to access Tract 4 from the late 1950s until 1998, initially on foot and later with vehicles. The Bucks did not seek permission from property owner Avent during this period. Although Avent acknowledged awareness of the Bucks' usage, he could not provide evidence of any prior permission granted before 1998. Avent's objection to a timber company's request to use the road in 1977 did not impact the trial court's findings, as the company ultimately did not use the old road for logging.
The trial court affirmed that the Bucks' use of the road constituted an adverse claim of right, as the Bucks had utilized the road without interruption for over twenty years, despite the Avents’ claims to the contrary. The Avents argued that the prescriptive period was interrupted by a timber company's request for permission in 1977 and ended no later than 1995. However, the evidence supported the Bucks’ continuous use of the road since at least 1933, which fulfilled the twenty-year prescriptive period requirement.
Additionally, the trial court found that the Bucks had a prescriptive easement over the Avents’ property, and that this easement arose by implication, meeting the necessary legal criteria: separation of title, long and obvious use, essentiality for the enjoyment of the land, and continuous usage. Thus, the trial court concluded that the Bucks established a clear and convincing case for their prescriptive easement.
Implied easements are generally disfavored in legal doctrine, placing the burden on the party asserting the easement to prove their claim. In this case, the trial court determined that separation of title was established due to a division of a larger tract in 1933, where Tract 4 was found to be landlocked and necessitated access via a road across Lot 3. The trial court stated that this route was essential for the Bucks to enjoy their land. On appeal, the Avents contested the Bucks' claims, arguing that they failed to demonstrate continuous or obvious use of the road prior to the separation of title and that the easement was not essential for the Bucks' land enjoyment. They also asserted that the Bucks needed to show separation of title concerning the Story tract, which was not included in the 1933 division. However, the court noted that the claimed easement did not lie on or adjoin the Story tract, and thus, the Bucks were not required to prove separation of title for that property. The trial court also concluded that the Bucks met the requirement for demonstrating long-term use of the road, citing testimonies of usage dating back to before 1933. The Avents argued that evidence of post-1933 use was irrelevant and that pre-1933 usage lacked proof. In response, the Bucks maintained that their family's long-term use of the road justified the claim, arguing that without such access, Tract 4 would have been completely inaccessible.
The Bucks argue that Joel Parker could not have conveyed a tract without providing access via a road, asserting that the longstanding use of a record easement indicates it was intended to be permanent. Testimony from Buck revealed that his family utilized the old logging road before the title separation, and he had personal knowledge of the property. This usage was corroborated by other witnesses who stated that no access to Tract 4 existed aside from the logging road, and the Avents did not present evidence to counter this claim. Tennessee courts define "necessity" as "reasonably necessary" for the enjoyment of the dominant tenement, which the trial evidence established for the logging road's use. Since this access was deemed necessary, it was reasonable to assume both parties contemplated it during the title separation. The Bucks also demonstrated that the easement is essential for enjoying their land, as the trial court recognized overwhelming evidence that the old logging road on Tract 3 is the only feasible access point for landlocked Tract 4. This situation parallels the case of Fowler v. Wilbanks, where an easement was granted based on similar circumstances, including long-standing use of a road and the lack of alternative access. The Avents contend there are other means to access Tract 4, but the evidence supports the Bucks' position that the logging road is the sole access route.
The Avents assert that while some alternative access routes to their property involve wet or swampy areas, all relevant property is located near a river, including the claimed easement. They highlight that the Bucks have accessed Tract 1 by crossing another's property and that the Avents would allow the Bucks to cross a portion of Tract 3 to reach Tract 4. The court refers to a precedent in Fowler, where a similar argument was dismissed because it required crossing someone else's property to access a public road. The court found the Avents’ suggested routes unreasonable, as they would necessitate the Bucks obtaining permissions from multiple property owners. Consequently, the trial court's conclusion that the Bucks’ use of the road is essential for their property enjoyment is affirmed, along with the grant of an implied easement.
The Avents also contest the trial court's appointment of Wiles as an expert to determine property boundaries, arguing it undermined the court’s responsibility to resolve factual disputes. They compare this situation to Blankenship v. Blankenship, where a trial court's reliance on a Special Master without exercising independent judgment led to a reversal. The court agrees with the Avents, noting that the trial court’s prior approval of Wiles’ boundary placements restricted its ability to independently assess the evidence and consider objections from the parties. As a result, this aspect of the trial court's decision is reversed, and the case is remanded for the trial court to hear objections, allow additional evidence, and independently determine the boundary lines. The overall decision is affirmed in part and reversed in part, with costs on appeal equally shared between the Avents and the Bucks.
