Leonard D. Carr v. Lysle T. Veach, Jr. ( 2020 )

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
September 2020 Term
_______________ FILED
November 17, 2020
released at 3:00 p.m.
No. 19-0216 EDYTHE NASH GAISER, CLERK
_______________ SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA
LEONARD D. CARR and GLORIA J. CARR,
Petitioners
v.
LYSLE T. VEACH, JR., WHITNEY SLOANE VEACH,
SYDNEY MORGAN VEACH, and BAILEY A. VEACH,
Respondents
____________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Grant County
The Honorable Lynn A. Nelson, Judge
Civil Action No. 16-C-1
AFFIRMED
____________________________________________________________
Submitted: September 16, 2020
Filed: November 17, 2020
Nathan H. Walters, Esq. Jason R. Sites, Esq.
Walters & Heishman, PLLC Sites Law Firm, PLLC
Moorefield, West Virginia Keyser, West Virginia
Counsel for Petitioners Counsel for Respondents
CHIEF JUSTICE ARMSTEAD delivered the Opinion of the Court.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT
1. “In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions of the circuit
court made after a bench trial, a two-pronged deferential standard of review is applied. The
final order and the ultimate disposition are reviewed under an abuse of discretion standard,
and the circuit court’s underlying factual findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous
standard. Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.” Syllabus Point 1, Public
Citizen, Inc. v. First National Bank in Fairmont, 198 W. Va. 329, 480 S.E.2d 538 (1996).
2. “ Although the ruling of a trial court in granting or denying a motion
for a new trial is entitled to great respect and weight, the trial court’s ruling will be reversed
on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted under some misapprehension of the
law or the evidence.” Syllabus Point 4, Sanders v. Georgia-Pacific Corporation, 159 W.
Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976).
3. “A person claiming a prescriptive easement must prove each of the
following elements: (1) the adverse use of another’s land; (2) that the adverse use was
continuous and uninterrupted for at least ten years; (3) that the adverse use was actually
known to the owner of the land, or so open, notorious and visible that a reasonable owner
of the land would have noticed the use; and (4) the reasonably identified starting point,
ending point, line, and width of the land that was adversely used, and the manner or purpose
i
for which the land was adversely used.” Syllabus Point 1, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va.
590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010).
4. “A person claiming a prescriptive easement must establish each
element of prescriptive use as a necessary and independent fact by clear and convincing
evidence, and the failure to establish any one element is fatal to the claim.” Syllabus Point
3, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010).
5. “[A]ll of the elements of prescriptive use, including the fact that the
use relied upon is adverse, must appear by clear and convincing proof.” Syllabus Point
2, in part, Beckley National Exchange Bank v. Lilly, 116 W. Va. 608, 182 S.E. 767 (1935).
6. “In the context of prescriptive easements, the term “adverse use” does
not imply that the person claiming a prescriptive easement has animosity, personal
hostility, or ill will toward the landowner; the uncommunicated mental state of the person
is irrelevant. Instead, adverse use is measured by the observable actions and statements of
the person claiming a prescriptive easement and the owner of the land.” Syllabus Point 4,
O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010).
7. “In the context of prescriptive easements, an “adverse use” of land is
a wrongful use, made without the express or implied permission of the owner of the land.
An “adverse use” is one that creates a cause of action by the owner against the person
ii
claiming the prescriptive easement; no prescriptive easement may be created unless the
person claiming the easement proves that the owner could have prevented the wrongful use
by resorting to the law.” Syllabus Point 5, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d
561 (2010).
8. “In the context of prescriptive easements, a use of another’s land that
began as permissive will not become adverse unless the license (created by the granting of
permission) is repudiated.” Syllabus Point 6, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d
561 (2010).
9. “The burden of proving adverse use is upon the party who is claiming
a prescriptive easement against the interests of the true owner of the land.” Syllabus Point
7, in part, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010).
iii
Armstead, Chief Justice:
Leonard D. Carr and Gloria J. Carr (“Petitioners”) appeal the Circuit Court
of Grant County’s order denying their motion for a new trial and their renewed motion for
a new trial following a bench trial. In that trial, Petitioners sought a finding that they
maintained a right-of-way over, across, and through real estate owned by Lysle T. Veach,
Jr., Whitney Sloane Veach, Sydney Morgan Veach, and Bailey A. Veach (“Respondents”).
After hearing the evidence below, the circuit court found that Petitioners had neither an
express easement nor a prescriptive easement across Respondents’ property.
Having fully reviewed this matter, we affirm.
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts of this matter were fully developed during a two-day bench trial
and are as follows:
In 2013, Petitioners purchased an approximate 204-acre tract of land in Grant
County, West Virginia, near Knobley Road. This tract does not directly abut any public
road. Respondents own property to the east of Petitioners’ property, which sits between
Petitioners’ property and Knobley Road. Respondents’ property has an internal private
road stretching from Knobley Road to Petitioners’ property.
1
At the time of the trial, Petitioners had access to their property in two ways.
First, following construction of Appalachian Development Corridor H through their
property, the West Virginia Division of Highways provided access to Petitioners’ property
from the newly-constructed four-lane highway. This access was referred to as a “pig path,”
because once the public access point became a private road where it left the controlled
access right of way owned by the West Virginia Division of Highways, the private road
extending to Petitioners’ property was in deplorable condition. This access enters
Petitioners’ property on its western side.
Petitioners’ other access point was through the use of the existing private
road which crosses Respondents’ property to Knobley Road. This is the most direct access
to Petitioners’ property. For many years, Respondents’ predecessors in title allowed
Petitioners’ predecessors in title to enter Respondents’ property from Knobley Road,
crossing Respondents’ property along the private road to access what is now Petitioners’
property. Petitioners argued that their predecessors had the right to use this private road
and that such use was not permissive. Respondents argued the use was permissive and was
demonstrated by: 1) Respondents or their predecessors providing keys to gates along the
route that were in place for extended periods of time; 2) Respondents providing a remote-
control device which opened an electronic gate on the private road; and, 3) Petitioners
seeking – and receiving – Respondents’ permission to allow contractors to use the road
during construction of a home on Petitioners’ property.
2
In 1939, a chancery proceeding was filed that affected what is now
Petitioners’ property. The purpose of the proceeding was to divide and sell portions of a
larger 380-acre parcel of which Petitioners’ property is a part. Land Commissioners were
appointed and they reported to the circuit court that the 380-acre parcel should be divided
into two tracts of 230 acres and 150 acres. They further recommended that a right of way
“for the benefit of either of said tracts when they are laid off,” be established within the
380 acres. This proceeding affected no interest in Respondents’ property.
Through various mesne conveyances, Petitioners are the successors in title
to a portion of the property that was subject to the 1939 chancery proceeding. Respondents
are the owners of the adjacent property to the east and are not successors in title to any
person or property that was subject to the 1939 chancery proceedings. During the trial,
both Petitioners and Respondents offered expert testimony from lawyers who had
examined the title to both properties and opined as to the existence of an express easement
allowing Petitioners to use Respondents’ road. Both experts agreed 1 and the circuit court
specifically found that “[n]o evidence of any Grant or Reservation of an express easement
in a Deed within the [Respondents’] chain of title was introduced.” In fact, the only
1
Petitioners’ expert nonetheless maintained that it was necessary to search
for information outside the chain of title to determine if an express easement existed. This
flies in the face of our law which provides, “[i]t is well settled, of course, that parol
evidence is inadmissible to vary, contradict, add to or explain the terms of a valid
unambiguous written instrument.” Wellman v. Tomblin, 140 W. Va. 342, 348, 84 S.E.2d
617, 621 (1954).
3
mention in the chain of title of an easement to Petitioners’ property from Knobley Road is
in deeds solely in Petitioners’ chain of title and which are not found in Respondents’ chain
of title.
Petitioners did not demonstrate below that any instrument of record in the
Office of the Clerk of the County Commission of Grant County contained an easement for
their use across Respondents’ property. Instead, the first mention of an easement in an
instrument of record was in a 1989 out-conveyance of the real estate now owned by
Petitioners which purported to grant the right to use Respondents’ private road. The second
mention of this easement was Petitioners’ source deed in 2013. This deed purports to
further delineate a right in Petitioners to use Respondents’ private road. No one in
Respondents’ chain of title is a party to either of these instruments.
Petitioners’ predecessors in title co-existed as neighbors with Respondents’
predecessors in title for seventy years, engaging in business dealings, visiting one another
and interacting as friends. In fact, Petitioners’ predecessors did not believe they were
trespassing when they used the private road. This use continued unencumbered until
Respondents revoked permission to use the road and began locking gates, which effectively
blocked Petitioners’ access across the private road. Petitioners then sought and were
granted a temporary injunction prohibiting Respondents from depriving them of access
until the issue of whether an easement existed across Respondents’ property was resolved.
4
Following the bench trial, the circuit court determined that Petitioners had
neither an express easement nor a prescriptive easement across Respondents’ property,
dissolved the temporary injunction, and granted a motion to alter or amend the judgment
giving Petitioners the right to use the private road for the duration of their lives. 2
Petitioners then appealed the circuit court’s rulings.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW
The two issues raised in this appeal involve the denial of a motion for a new
trial following the circuit court’s verdict in a bench trial and the subsequent denial of a
renewed motion for a new trial.
In reviewing challenges to the findings and conclusions
of the circuit court made after a bench trial, a two-pronged
deferential standard of review is applied. The final order and
the ultimate disposition are reviewed under an abuse of
discretion standard, and the circuit court’s underlying factual
findings are reviewed under a clearly erroneous standard.
Questions of law are subject to a de novo review.
Syllabus Point 1, Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. First Nat’l Bank in Fairmont, 198 W. Va. 329, 480
S.E.2d 538 (1996). Likewise,
[I]t is well-established that “‘[a]lthough the ruling of a trial
court in granting or denying a motion for a new trial is entitled
to great respect and weight, the trial court’s ruling will be
reversed on appeal when it is clear that the trial court has acted
under some misapprehension of the law or the evidence.’
2
On the cover page of Petitioners’ brief, it notes that Petitioner Leonard D.
Carr died on March 8, 2019. No suggestion of death was filed in the record and no party
has been substituted for Mr. Carr. See W. Va. R. Civ. P., Rule 25.
5
Syllabus [P]oint 4, Sanders v. Georgia–Pacific Corp., 159
W. Va. 621, 225 S.E.2d 218 (1976).” Syllabus Point
3, Carpenter v. Luke, 225 W. Va. 35, 689 S.E.2d 247 (2009).
In other words, our standard of review for a trial court’s
decision regarding a motion for a new trial is abuse of
discretion. Marsch v. American Elec. Power Co., 207 W. Va.
174, 180, 530 S.E.2d 173, 179 (1999).
MacDonald v. City Hosp., Inc., 227 W. Va. 707, 715, 715 S.E.2d 405, 413 (2011). We are
further guided by the deference an appellate court affords a trial judge’s factual findings
following a bench trial:
Following a bench trial, the circuit court’s findings, based on
oral or documentary evidence, shall not be overturned unless
clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the
opportunity of the circuit judge to evaluate the credibility of
the witnesses. W. Va. R. Civ. P[.] 52(a). Under this standard, if
the circuit court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light
of the record viewed in its entirety, we may not reverse it, even
though convinced that had we been sitting as the trier of fact,
we would have weighed the evidence differently. We will
disturb only those factual findings that strike us wrong with the
“force of a five-week-old, unrefrigerated dead fish.” United
States v. Markling, 7 F.3d 1309, 1319 (7th Cir. 1993), cert.
denied, 514 U.S. 1010, 115 S. Ct. 1327, 131 L. Ed. 2d 206
(1995).
Brown v. Gobble, 196 W. Va. 559, 563, 474 S.E.2d 489, 493 (1996).
Thus, we review the circuit court’s decisions under an abuse of discretion
standard. The assignments of error presented in this case will now be considered.
6
III. ANALYSIS
This case requires us to examine long-established rules governing easements.
Generally, “[a]n easement is a right that one person has to use the land of another person,
for a specific purpose.” Cobb v. Daugherty, 225 W. Va. 435, 441, 693 S.E.2d 800, 806
(2010). “The general rule … is that an easement can be created in three ways: by
prescription—the easement equivalent of adverse possession; by an express grant or
reservation; or … by implication from the particular set of facts and circumstances.” Id.
(quotations and footnotes omitted). The two questions arising in this matter are: 1) whether
an express easement exists; and, 2) whether there is a prescriptive easement across
Respondents’ land for the benefit of Petitioners. 3 We will examine each of these issues in
turn.
3
We note that Petitioners assert as an assignment of error that the circuit
court lacked the authority to grant them the right to use Respondents’ road for their natural
lifetimes.
As we stated in State, Dept. of Health v. Robert Morris
N., 195 W. Va. 759, 765, 466 S.E.2d 827, 833 (1995),
“‘[a] skeletal ”argument,” really nothing more than an
assertion, does not preserve a claim.... Judges are not like pigs,
hunting for truffles buried in briefs.’” (quoting United States v.
Dunkel, 927 F.2d 955, 956 (7th Cir.1991)). Furthermore, this
Court has adhered to the rule that “[a]lthough we liberally
construe briefs in determining issues presented for review,
issues ... mentioned only in passing but are not supported with
pertinent authority, are not considered on appeal.” State v.
LaRock, 196 W. Va. 294, 302, 470 S.E.2d 613, 621 (1996).
(continued . . .)
7
1. Express Easement
The circuit court found, and our review of the record confirms, that no
express easement exists that grants Petitioners the right to use the private road crossing
Respondents’ property. The record further shows that a purported easement is contained
in two instruments in Petitioners’ chain of title – one a deed from 2013 that is the source
of Petitioners’ title to their land and the other a prior deed from 1989. Both instruments
purport to convey a right to use a road from Knobley Road to Petitioners’ property. As
noted above, Petitioners do not own property abutting Knobley Road and Respondents’
property is located between that road and Petitioners’ property. Thus, the road noted in
Petitioners’ chain documents necessarily must be on Respondents’ property. The problem
is, no one in Respondents’ chain of title is a party to either of these two instruments. Both
of these instruments are wholly within Petitioners’ chain of title and are attempts by the
grantors in each to convey to someone a right that they did not possess.
West Virginia Code § 36-1-10 (1923) provides, in pertinent part, “[a] deed
which purports to convey a greater right or interest in real property than the person making
it may lawfully convey shall operate as an alienation of such right or interest in such real
State v. Kaufman, 227 W. Va. 537, 555 n.39, 711 S.E.2d 607, 625 n.39 (2011). Because
Petitioners do not cite to any authority and fail to carry this assignment of error over into
the argument section of their brief, we decline to address this issue.
We also find it telling that even though Petitioners attempted to appeal the
circuit court’s grant of the lifetime use of Respondents’ road, Respondents did not. Thus,
Respondents have either implicitly agreed to the circuit court’s finding or have waived the
right to challenge it.
8
property as such person might lawfully convey.” In other words, a person cannot convey
a greater interest in land than that person owns. This maxim is a bedrock of real property
law because “a grantee acquires nothing more than the grantor owns and can convey,
particularly where the title of grantor appears in deeds of record, and grantor’s intentions
are expressed in his deed.” Wellman v. Tomblin, 140 W. Va. 342, 344, 84 S.E.2d 617, 619
(1954). Here, language purporting to establish an easement is contained in both the 2013
and 1989 deeds. However, this language attempts to convey an interest binding
Respondents’ land that, in each case, the granting party did not have the lawful ability to
grant.
Further, the prior 1939 chancery proceeding only pertained to Petitioners’
property. That matter was a partition of a larger tract into two smaller tracts – neither of
which encompass any of the property now owned by Respondents. The references to an
easement in that matter pertain only to access between the two subdivided parcels and do
not provide any right to use any private road crossing Respondents’ property. Thus, the
1939 proceeding is not helpful to Petitioners’ argument that there is an express easement
across Respondents’ property.
We conclude that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in finding that
“[t]here was no proof offered that the lawful owners of the real estate now owned by
[Respondents] [g]ranted an express easement to any of the owners in the chain of title of
the [Petitioners].”
9
2. Prescriptive Easement
We now turn to the question of whether an easement across Respondents’
land was established by prescription. We have recently clarified the elements necessary to
establish a prescriptive easement, finding:
A person claiming a prescriptive easement must prove
each of the following elements: (1) the adverse use of another’s
land; (2) that the adverse use was continuous and uninterrupted
for at least ten years; (3) that the adverse use was actually
known to the owner of the land, or so open, notorious and
visible that a reasonable owner of the land would have noticed
the use; and (4) the reasonably identified starting point, ending
point, line, and width of the land that was adversely used, and
the manner or purpose for which the land was adversely used.
Syllabus Point 1, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703 S.E.2d 561 (2010). “A person
claiming a prescriptive easement must establish each element of prescriptive use as a
necessary and independent fact by clear and convincing evidence, and the failure to
establish any one element is fatal to the claim.” Syllabus Point 3, O’Dell. Finally, in order
to prevail, Petitioners have a heavy burden, namely, “all of the elements of prescriptive
use, including the fact that the use relied upon is adverse, must appear by clear and
convincing proof.” Syllabus Point 2, in part, Beckley Nat. Exchange Bank v. Lilly, 116
W. Va. 608, 182 S.E. 767 (1935).
O’Dell clarified over one hundred years of this Court’s precedents on
prescriptive easements and in so doing, provided clear guidance in a series of Syllabus
Points as to what the term “adverse use” means and what evidence is required to establish
it:
10
In the context of prescriptive easements, the term
“adverse use” does not imply that the person claiming a
prescriptive easement has animosity, personal hostility, or ill
will toward the landowner; the uncommunicated mental state
of the person is irrelevant. Instead, adverse use is measured by
the observable actions and statements of the person claiming a
prescriptive easement and the owner of the land.
In the context of prescriptive easements, an “adverse
use” of land is a wrongful use, made without the express or
implied permission of the owner of the land. An “adverse use”
is one that creates a cause of action by the owner against the
person claiming the prescriptive easement; no prescriptive
easement may be created unless the person claiming the
easement proves that the owner could have prevented the
wrongful use by resorting to the law.
In the context of prescriptive easements, a use of
another’s land that began as permissive will not become
adverse unless the license (created by the granting of
permission) is repudiated.
The burden of proving adverse use is upon the party
who is claiming a prescriptive easement against the interests of
the true owner of the land. . . .
Syllabus Points 4 - 6 and Syllabus Point 7, in part, O’Dell v. Stegall, 226 W. Va. 590, 703
S.E.2d 561 (2010).
Applying O’Dell to the facts of this case, we see that the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion when it found that Petitioners had not satisfied the first element of a
prescriptive easement: adverse use. The circuit court found on the evidence adduced
during the bench trial that Petitioners’ predecessors’ use of the road was permissive. We
agree. First, “[p]ermission may be inferred from the neighborly relation of the parties, or
from other circumstances.” O’Dell, 226 W. Va. at 613, 703 S.E.2d at 584. Here,
11
Respondents and Petitioners’ predecessors maintained neighborly relations. They lent and
borrowed the proverbial cup of sugar, a strong indication of permissive, rather than
adverse, use.
Second, and fundamentally, Respondents gave Petitioners keys and remote
controls so that Petitioners could open gates that otherwise barred access to the road across
Respondents’ property. We cannot imagine a more obvious manifestation of permission.
We note that Respondents also specifically allowed contractors constructing a home on
Petitioners’ property to use the road as a means of access. 4 Petitioners had the burden to
demonstrate that their use of Respondents’ road was adverse and they did not make that
showing. 5 Therefore, the circuit court did not abuse its discretion in reaching the
conclusion that no prescriptive easement existed across Respondents’ property.
Petitioners argue that their predecessors used the road believing it to be their
4
legal right and that Respondents knew of that belief but did not contest it. See Syllabus
Point 2, Faulkner v. Thorn, 122 W. Va. 323, 9 S.E.2d 140 (1940) (permissive use continues
until “licensee, to the knowledge of the licensor, renounces the permission and claims the
use as his own right, and thereafter uses the way under his adverse claim openly,
continuously, and uninterruptedly, for the prescriptive period”). Having reviewed the
record, we do not see that clear and convincing evidence supports that position.
Because Petitioners failed to establish that their use of the private road
5
across Respondents’ property was adverse, we do not address the remaining O’Dell factors.
See Syllabus Point 3, O’Dell (“failure to establish any one element is fatal to the claim” for
a prescriptive easement).
12
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the circuit court.
Affirmed.
13