Case Title: Eileen B. White & Assoc. v. Gunnells

Citation: 263 Ga. 360, 434 S.E.2d 477

Docket Number: S93A0923

State: georgia

Court: Georgia Supreme Court

Date: 1993-09-20T00:00:00Z

Document:
263 Ga. 360 (1993) 434 S.E.2d 477 EILEEN B. WHITE & ASSOCIATES, INC. et al. v. GUNNELLS et al. S93A0923. Supreme Court of Georgia. Decided September 20, 1993. Lynwood D. Jordan, Jr., for appellants. Banks, Stubbs & Iverson, J. Richard Neville, for appellees. CARLEY, Justice. The instant action concerns an asphalt road on property which belongs to appellant-plaintiffs. Although this road had been established, maintained and kept open entirely by appellants, appellee-defendants had also been using it for more than seven years as an alternate means of access to and egress from their adjoining property. Appellants were on notice that appellees were also using the road, but express permission for such use had never been sought or given. When appellants brought suit, seeking to enjoin appellees' continued use of the road, appellees counterclaimed, alleging a prescriptive easement and seeking to enjoin appellants from interfering with their continued use of the road. After a bench trial, the trial court held that appellees did have a prescriptive easement and appellants were enjoined from interfering with appellees' continued use of the road. Appellants appeal from that order of the trial court and enumerate the general grounds. Rothberg v. Peachtree Investments, 220 Ga. 776, 778 (1) (142 SE2d 264) (1965). In the instant case, appellees failed to allege and show that they, rather than appellants, had kept the road open and in repair during a seven-year period. First Christian Church v. Realty Investment Co., 180 Ga. 35, 43 (178 SE 303) (1935) (On Motion For Rehearing). Nevertheless, "[t]he repair-notice *361 requirement appears consistently in [this court's] cases involving prescriptive acquisition of private roads. [Cits.]" Chota, Inc. v. Woodley, 251 Ga. 678, 680 (309 SE2d 132) (1983). There may be a limited exception to the requirement that repairs be alleged and shown. Hardin v. Snow, 201 Ga. 58 (2) (38 SE2d 836) (1946). However, the continuing viability of Hardin as authority for an exception to the repair-notice requirement has been questioned. See Pindar, Ga. Real Estate Law, § 8-11, fn. 7 (3d ed.). Chota, Inc. v. Woodley, supra at 680. Moreover, even assuming that appellees were not otherwise required to allege and show either that they had repaired the road or that no repairs were necessary, they nevertheless were required to allege and show that they had otherwise given appellants notice of their adverse claim to the road. (Emphasis in original.) Rothberg v. Peachtree Investments, supra at 780-781 (2). In the instant case, all that appellees showed was that they had *362 used the road without express permission and that appellants were aware of that use. Rothberg v. Peachtree Investments, supra at 781. (Emphasis in original.) First Christian Church v. Realty Investment Co., supra at 43 (On Motion For Rehearing). There are cases which suggest that an owner's acquiescence in the mere use of a road on his property for seven years, without notice of adverse use in the form of making repairs or otherwise, will authorize the grant of a prescriptive easement to the user. See Rizer v. Harris, 182 Ga. App. 31, 33-34 (354 SE2d 660) (1987); Fine v. Strauss, 86 Ga. App. 354, 355 (2) (71 SE2d 580) (1952). However, those cases are inconsistent with long-standing authority to the contrary and are hereby overruled. "Use alone is insufficient to acquire prescriptive title [under OCGA § 44-9-1]." Cox v. Zucker, 214 Ga. 44, 52 (4) (102 SE2d 580) (1958). An owner's acquiescence in the mere use of his road establishes, at most, a revocable license. See Fluker v. Ga. R. &c. Co., 81 Ga. 461, 464 (2) (8 SE 529) (1889). To establish a prescriptive easement over the private property of another pursuant to OCGA § 44-9-1, it is necessary to show that the owner was given notice that the user intended *363 First Christian Church v. Realty Investment Co., supra at 39-40. Judgment reversed. All the Justices concur.