The defendants—husband and wife—own a piece of property in Jackson County. Two neighboring families used a road over the defendants’ property to reach their own properties. In November 2002, one neighboring family filed a complaint against the defendants for interfering with their right to use the road. They requested that the Jackson County Circuit Court issue a temporary restraining order (TRO) to prohibit the defendants from interfering with their use.
After a hearing, the circuit court issued a temporary injunction against the defendants, allowed the first plaintiff-neighbors to erect a gate across the roadway, and then required the plaintiff to give the defendants a key to the gate. The plaintiffs were also allowed to use the road to harvest timber from their property, but had to restore the road to the condition it was in before the harvesting began.
At this point, a second plaintiff-neighbor intervened in the case, maintaining that he too had a right to use the roadway.
In May 2003, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the first plaintiffs, maintaining that they had trespassed on their property, damaged timber, damaged their land, caused flooding and erosion, and diminished the value of their land. They requested $1 million in compensatory and punitive damages. In May 2004, the defendants added the second plaintiff-neighbor and others to their counterclaim.
In February 2008, the circuit court held a bench trial in this case. In general, the evidence at trial indicated the following. The road had been used since 1911. During a flood in 1968 which washed out a bridge over Big Coon Creek, seven families used the road to access their properties. Another witness, who was not a nearby landowner, testified that he often used the road to take his sons fishing in the 1970s. The former owner of the land now owned by both the first plaintiffs and the second plaintiff testified that he had used the road for 12 years to access his property. When he bought the property from the former owner, the second plaintiff (current owner) indicated that the former owner told him the only way to access his property was by using the road.
Even after the preliminary injunction had been issued, the defendants had tried to prevent the plaintiffs from using the road. Tacks and nails were strewn on the roadway. After shots were fired, the timber harvesting was stopped until the matter was resolved. In 2005, when one of the plaintiffs attempted to use the road, there was a physical altercation between the plaintiff and someone apparently acting on behalf of the defendants.
On July 27, 2010, the circuit court finally entered its judgment. In her judgment, the circuit judge indicated that she had physically viewed the road. She found that the plaintiffs had established an easement by prescription for the roadway and were therefore entitled to use it for reaching their property. The defendants were permanently enjoined from interfering with the plaintiffs’ use of the road. The court also found that the defendants were not entitled to damages.
The defendants appealed and the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals, which affirmed the circuit court’s decision. See Steele v. O’Neal, decided on August 26, 2011.
Items on this web page are general in nature. They cannot—and should not—replace consultation with a competent legal professional. Nothing on this web page should be considered rendering legal advice.
Return to top.
Return to Legal Developments.
Attorneys who practice in the area
of real estate law.
