Case Title: Vee Evelyn Carlton and Kathryn Mae Hutchinson v. Amanda Webb Hollon and George Alexander Hollon

Citation: 

Docket Number: 1070823

State: alabama

Court: Alabama Supreme Court

Date: 2008-08-29T00:00:00Z

Document:
REL: 08/29/2008
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 229-
0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made before
the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
SPECIAL TERM, 2008
____________________
1070823
____________________
Vee Evelyn Carlton and Kathryn Mae Hutchinson
v.
Amanda Webb Hollon and George Alexander Hollon
Appeal from Autauga Circuit Court 
(CV-07-900064)
STUART, Justice.
Vee Evelyn Carlton and Kathryn Mae Hutchinson own real
property adjacent to real property owned by Amanda Webb Hollon
and George Alexander Hollon.  Carlton and Hutchinson sued the
Hollons and the previous owners of the property, Lewis F. Webb
1070823
2
and Alice C. Webb, alleging that alterations made to the
Hollons' property caused damage and continues to cause damage
to their property.  Carlton and Hutchinson alleged claims of
negligence, private nuisance, trespass, and interference with
the natural flow of water. They requested damages and asked
the court "to issue a preliminary injunction requiring the
defendants to comply with all [Alabama Department of
Environmental Management] rules, regulations, and other
requirements" and to  issue a permanent injunction "requiring
defendants to remove all obstructions and otherwise restore
the normal drainage of water and further restraining
defendants from obstructing such drainage in the future."  The
Autauga Circuit Court entered a summary judgment for the
Hollons on all claims; it certified that judgment as final
pursuant to Rule 54(b), Ala. R. Civ. P.  Carlton and
Hutchinson appeal.  We reverse and remand.
Facts and Procedural History
The evidence tends to show that when the Webbs owned the
subject property, they removed timber and made changes to the
surface of the property near the property line dividing the
Webbs' property and Carlton and Hutchinson's property.  The
1070823
3
removal of the timber and the other alterations to the
property, according to Carlton and Hutchinson, resulted in an
alteration of the natural pattern of water drainage from the
Webbs' property onto to their property, along with an increase
in the flow of silt and other discharge onto their property.
Evidence was submitted that tends to show that the removal of
timber and the other surface alterations may not have been
performed in compliance with the rules and regulations of the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management.
In July 2005, the Webbs deeded their property to the
Hollons.  In deposition, the Hollons testified that since they
have owned the property, they have not cut any timber, altered
the surface features of their property, or pushed any soil,
rock, or other field material into any tributary on their
property.  They also denied diverting drainage waters, silt,
or any other discharge from their property to any other
property.  They stated that they have not in any way disturbed
the property that was deeded to them by the Webbs.
In July 2007, Carlton and Hutchinson sued the Webbs and
the Hollons.  The Hollons moved for a summary judgment,
stating:
1070823
4
"[Carlton and Hutchinson] 
have 
filed 
a 
complaint
accusing 
all 
'Defendants' of various misdeeds
resulting in damage to their property.  In fact, the
Hollon Defendants did nothing to alter the parcel of
real estate deeded to them by the Webbs.  In this
case, the Hollon Defendants are guilty of nothing
other than owning and living on this parcel of
property.
"The evidence in this case is undisputed that
the Hollons have no reason to be in the case.  They
are blameless and are due summary judgment."
In support of their motion, the Hollons attached an affidavit
from Lewis F. Webb, who averred:
"2.  Amanda Webb Hollon is my daughter.  George
Alexander Hollon is my son-in-law.  On July 22,
2005, my wife Alice and I deeded a parcel of real
estate to them.  The real property we deeded to them
joins the real property owned by me and my wife and
appears to be the land referred to in the complaint
filed by plaintiffs. ...
"3.  Any removal of timber and changes made to
the surface features of this real property were made
before my wife and I deeded this parcel to my
daughter and son-in-law.  No timber has been cut off
this parcel and no alteration to the surface
features of this parcel have been made since my
daughter and son-in-law have owned this property."
George Hollon also submitted an affidavit, averring:
"2.  My father-in-law, Lewis F. Webb, and my
mother-in-law, Alice C. Webb, deeded a parcel of
real estate to my wife and me on or about July 22,
2005.  Since that date, my wife and I have not cut
any timber off this parcel of real estate and have
not altered any surface features of this parcel of
1070823
5
real estate.  Any changes were made prior to our
acquiring this real estate.
"3.  Neither my wife nor I have pushed soil,
rock or any other field material into any tributary
on the property we own.  Neither my wife nor I have
diverted 
drainage 
waters, 
silt 
or 
any 
other
discharge from our property to any other property.
In short, the parcel of real estate owned by my wife
and I has not been disturbed since it was deeded to
us."  
Carlton and Hutchinson filed a motion in opposition to
the Hollons' motion for a summary judgment.  In their motion,
they argued, among other arguments, that the Hollons are aware
of the existence of problems on the Hollons' property with
respect to drainage and erosion and that they have not
remedied the problems.  In support of their motion, they
submitted an affidavit from Vee Carlton stating that the
unnatural erosion on her property caused by conditions on the
Hollons' property is a continuous problem.  She averred:
"2.  I am the co-owner of certain real property
that adjoins that parcel of land owned by Defendants
Amanda Webb Hollon and George Alexander Hollon. ...
"3.  The property owned by me continues to
suffer from unnatural erosion problems caused by the
flow of silt and other materials from the property
owned by [the Hollons].
"4.  I personally walked along the perimeter of
my land this past weekend following last week's
rain, and discovered that the ruts on [the Hollons']
1070823
Carlton's affidavit was executed on February 4, 2008.
1
6
land are now deeper than they ever have been due to
silt and other discharge that is coming from higher
elevations on the Hollons' property.
"5.  It does not appear to me as though anyone
has done anything to remedy the unnatural surface
feature defects that are present on that real
property owned by [the Hollons].
"6.  The injury to my land continues to worsen
and can only be remedied by active efforts on the
part of [the Hollons] insofar as foreign materials
enter my property from their property."1
Additionally, Carlton and Hutchinson submitted excerpts from
the depositions of both of the Hollons in which they admitted
that they were aware of drainage problems originating on their
property and admitted that they had not taken any action to
remedy those problems.
After reviewing the submitted pleadings, depositions, and
affidavits,  the circuit court entered a summary judgment for
the Hollons.
Standard of Review
"'The standard by which this Court will review
a motion for summary judgment is well established:
"'"The principles of law applicable to
a motion for summary judgment are well
settled.  To grant such a motion, the trial
court must determine that the evidence does
not create a genuine issue of material fact
1070823
7
and that the movant is entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.  Rule
56(c)(3), Ala. R. Civ. P.  When the movant
makes a prima facie showing that those two
conditions are satisfied, the burden shifts
to the nonmovant to present 'substantial
evidence' creating a genuine issue of
material fact.  Bass v. SouthTrust Bank of
Baldwin County, 538 So. 2d 794, 797-98
(Ala. 1989); § 12-21-12(d)[,] Ala. Code
1975.  Evidence is 'substantial' if it is
of 
'such 
weight 
and 
quality 
that
fair-minded persons in the exercise of
impartial judgment can reasonably infer the
existence of the fact sought to be proved.'
West v. Founders Life Assur. Co. of
Florida, 547 So. 2d 870, 871 (Ala. 1989).
"'"In 
our 
review 
of 
a 
summary
judgment, we apply the same standard as the
trial court.  Ex parte Lumpkin, 702 So. 2d
462, 465 (Ala. 1997).  Our review is
subject to the caveat that we must review
the record in a light most favorable to the
nonmovant and must resolve all reasonable
doubts against the movant.  Hanners v.
Balfour Guthrie, Inc., 564 So. 2d 412 (Ala.
1990)."'
"Payton v. Monsanto Co., 801 So. 2d 829, 832-33
(Ala. 2001) (quoting Ex parte Alfa Mut. Gen. Ins.
Co., 742 So. 2d 182, 184 (Ala. 1999))."
Baugus v. City of Florence, [Ms. 1061151, November 9, 2007]
___ So. 2d ___, ___ (Ala. 2007).
Analysis
Carlton and Hutchinson contend that the trial court erred
in entering a summary judgment for the Hollons because, they
1070823
8
say, the Hollons, as owners of the subject property, are
liable for not remedying the conditions on the subject
property that are causing injury to their property.
The Hollons argued in their motion for a summary judgment
that they had not committed any of the alleged alterations to
the subject property that form the basis of Carlton and
Hutchinson's 
claims 
of 
negligence, 
private 
nuisance, 
trespass,
and interference with the natural flow of water and the
request for injunctive relief.  In support of their summary-
judgment motion, they  presented evidence to the trial court
indicating that they had not altered the subject property
since the property was conveyed to them and that any
alterations to the property were made before the property was
conveyed to them.  
In Sloss Sheffield Steel & Iron Co. v. Nance, 216 Ala.
237, 113 So. 50 (1927), this Court held that a landowner may
be held liable for failing to correct a condition on the
landowner's property that was created by the previous
landowner when that condition causes injury to an adjacent
landowner's property, and the current landowner has had a
reasonable time to correct the condition.  
1070823
9
Here, Carlton and Hutchinson have presented substantial
evidence to overcome the summary judgment.  Carlton's
affidavit 
and 
the 
admissions 
of 
the 
Hollons 
present
substantial evidence creating a question for the jury to
resolve as to whether the Hollons, by failing to remedy the
conditions on their property, have injured the property of
Carlton and Hutchinson and are liable for that damage.
Therefore, the summary judgment for the Hollons is reversed.
Conclusion
The trial court's judgment is reversed, and this cause is
remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Cobb, C.J., and See, Woodall, Smith, Bolin, Parker, and
Murdock, JJ., concur.
Lyons, J., concurs in the result.