### IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TE NNESSEE AT KNOX VILLE Fe br ua ry 17, 200 5 S es sio n
WALK ER GRAY HAUN v. LO UIS E UGENE H AUN, JR.
Appeal f romthe Circ uit Court for Blou nt County No. E-19857 W. Dale Young, Judge

No. E2004-01895-COA- R3-CV - F ILED APR IL 28, 2005

Th is a pp e a l in vo lve s a

dis pu te be tw e e n tw o b ro the rs ov e r the us e of a ro a dw a y that li e s o n th e ir adjac ent trac ts of property . The issue pre sented is whethe r Walker Gr ay Haun ha s an ea sement acr oss the property

of his brot h er , L o u i s E u g ene H aun, Jr. The trial court gr anted Walker Gra y Haun a n ease ment either by p re scription or by

implication which allowed him to use the roa dway that had exis ted for at least fifty y ear s and provided the only vehicular acc ess to a renta l hous e on his pr op e rt y . We ho ld tha t Wa lke r G ray Haun did no t e sta

bli sh a pr e sc ri pti ve e a se me nt, bu t th a t hi s proof satisfied the elements of an ease ment by implication, a nd there forewe a ffirm the tria l court’s judgme nt.
Te nn.R .A pp.P . 3 App e al a s o f Rig ht ; J udgm e nt of t he Ci r c uit

Co ur t A ffirm e d; Case Re m anded

S HAR ON G. LEE , J ., delivere d the opinion of the court, in which P ATR I C I A J. C O T T RE LL and D. M I CH A EL S WI NEY , J J ., joined.

David T. B lack a nd J ustin R. M artin, Mary ville, Tenne ssee, for Appellant L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. David R. Dug g an and L ee K ull, Mary ville, Tennesse e, for Appellee Walker Gray

Haun.
OP IN ION

Jane Gr a y Haun wa s the ow ne r of a fa rm in B lou nt Cou nty , Te nn e sse e wh ic h upo n he r d e a th in 1973 passed to her three children, W alker Gra y Haun, L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r., and Car oline Haun No we ll. Th e Haun c hil dr e n a pp are ntl y c ou ld n ot a g re e a s to a

div isi on of

the pr op e rt y , an d so, in 1999 L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. petitioned the Chanc ery Court for B lount Count y

to partition the farm in kind. The Court appointed three commissioners who divided the farm into trac ts a mong the three children. A judgme nt c onfirming the partition was e ntere d by the B lount Count y

Chance ry

Court
on Au g us t 21 , 2 00 3. Ea c h o f the thr e e c hil dr e n w e re a warded tra c ts w hic h w e re sp e c if ic a lly described in the judgme nt. T he judgme nt c ontained the following handwritten notation which was ini tia le d b y

c ou ns e l f or a ll p artie s:-2- *subject to the provision containe d in this J udg ment that no thing
c on t a i n e d i n t h i s Ju d g m e n t s h a l l p r e c l u d e W a l k e r G r a y H a u n , his heirs or a ssigns, fr om pursuing his rig hts, if any , in and to an alleg ed
ease ment for a cce ss for ing ress and eg ress acr oss T rac t 3 he rein to the “re ntal home” situated on tr ac t 2A her ein allotted to Walker Gray Haun.

The t ra ct awa

rded to Walker G ray

Haun lies g ener ally

west of L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r.’s pr op e rt y . Walk e r Gr a y Haun ’s pr op e rt y ha s f ro nta g e on To ps ide Roa d, bu t th e on ly a c c e ss r oa d to the re ntal house located on the tra ct is an unim proved roadwa y that runs gene rally eastwa rd, cr ossing a portion of L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r.’s prope rty , meets L akeside Acr es W ay , a priva te roa d running throug h the middle of L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r.’s prope rty to which all the Haun heirs have undisputed
acc ess, and then to Topside Roa d.

A di spute develope d betwee n the t wo brothers over use of the roa dway . Walker Gray Haun hir e d w or ke rs to repa ir the ro of

of the re nta l ho us e a ndbe fo re the y c omp le te d th e ir

wo rk , L ou is Eu g e ne Haun , J r. ha d a cha in an d a loc k pla c e d ac ro ss the ro a d. Th e c ha in w a s c ut t o g a in a c c e ss t o t h e p ro p er t y
. T h er e we re ad d i t i o n al s k i rm i s h es cu l m i n at i n g i n L o u i s E u gen e Ha u n , J r. h av i n g a load of lar g e roc ks dumped on the roa d, blocking acc ess to t h e h o u s e. I n response , Walker Gray H a u n s u e d h i s b r o t h e r a n d a l l e g e d t h a th e h a d a n e a s e m e n tb y i m p l i c a t i o n f o r t h e u s e o f t h e r o a d w a y. He late r ame nded his complaint to alleg e a pr escriptive ease ment.

After a trial on Nove mber 19 a nd 21, 2003, the t rial court ruled that Walker G ray Haun ha d established an e aseme nt by presc ription or implication, stating and re asoning as follows in rele vant pa rt :
T h e r e i s n o d i s p u t e t h a tt h e f armr o a d w h i c h c r o s s e s [L ou is Eu g e ne Haun , Jr. ]’s Tr a c t 3, a t is su e in this c a us e , h a s e xisted in i ts same location for more than fifty (50) y ea rs and has been used primarily for ing ress a nd eg ress a s to the rental pr operty located on [W alker Gra y Haun]’s property

T ra ct 2A, and f

or ag ricultural pu rp os e s; That there is no dispute that for many y ear s the income fr om the re ntal house in question was used to maintain the sa id road; There is no dispute that [ Walker Gray Ha u n] has had unfetter ed ac cess to the r oad prior to the instant a ction; [W alker Gray Ha u n ] has no existi ng acc ess by road to the renta l property

located on his pro p er ty other than by

way of the subject fa rm roa d , and if de nied the use of that farm road [Walker Gray Haun ] wil l be re qu ir e d to c on str uc t a n a lte rn a te ro a d to g a in
acc ess to his rental prope rty ; and-3- [W alker Gra y Haun]’s p roof shows that e stimates to build a
new a cce ss road fr om a nea r-by public road r ang e fr om $37,685.00 to $ 60 ,0 00 .0 0, a nd[L ou is E ug e ne Haun , Jr. ]’s pr oo f s ho ws that a partial e stimate on the construc tion of the same r oad is about $17,500

. 0 0 , but that estimate excludes work re quired by the Te nn e sse e Valle y

Au tho ri ty

and /o r the U. S. Co rp s o f E ng ine e r[s ] and/ o r t he State of Te nnessee Depa rtment of Transportation and/or any other applicable state or fe dera l ag ency , and [L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r.]’s expert testified that his e stimate excluded the remova l of stumps and tre es along the route, a nd he estimated that could incre ase the cost of the pr oject seve ral thousand dollar s to at least the minimum
e sta bli sh ed by [Wal ke r G ray Haun ]’s e xpe rt ; no w, the re fo re , it is OR DE RED , A DJUD GE D A ND DE CRE ED a s f oll ow s: [W alker Gra y Haun] has prove d by

the pre pondera nce of

the
e vid e nc e that a ll re qu ir e me nts a s to pre sc ri pti ve ri g hts ha ve be e n f ull y met, and ac cording ly

judgme nt is entere d for [Walker Gray Haun] for an i m p l i ed or pre scriptive ea sement over and upon [L ouis Euge ne Haun, Jr.] ’s Tra ct as shown in Exhibi t 6. Th e e a s e m e n th e r e b y

c o n f i r m e d i s t o b e u s e d i n c o n f o r m i ty wi th i ts p ri or

us e ov e r the pa st f

if ty (5 0) y e ars , a nd e ve ry

re a so na ble eff ort should be made by

[W alker Gra y Haun] to see to it that no one
abu se s th e us e of

sa id e a se me nt. Un de r a pp lic able la w, [L ou is Eug ene H aun, Jr.] , if he so choose s, may g ate the f

arm roa d for
se c urity pu rp os e s so lon g a s [Wa lke r G ray Haun ] is g ive n fr e e a c c e ss at all re asonable times through the g ated f arm roa d. Ordinary and re asonable maintenanc e of the farm road
e a se me nt ( bo th o n [Walk e r Gr a y Haun ]’s po rt ion a nd on the [L ou is Eug ene H aun, Jr.] ’s property ) wil l be at the ex pense of [W alker Gra y Haun]. [num bering in orig inal omitted]

L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. appe als, raising the following issues for our r eview: 1. Did the trial court err in holding Walker Gray Haun pr oved the e x istence of an ea sement by presc ription or by

implication?

2. I f the trial c ourt did not err in g ranting Walker Gra y Haun an ease ment, did the court err by fa ili ng to a wa

rdL ou is E ug e ne Haun , Jr. e qu iva le nt v a lue fo r the dim ini sh e d w ort h of L ou is Eu g e ne Haun , Jr. ’s pr op e rt y a s e nc umb e re d w ith a n e a se me nt?

I n th is n on -j ury

c a se , o ur re vie w i s de novo upon the re cord of the proc eeding s below; but the re cord c omes to us w ith a presumption of corr ectne ss a s to the trial court' s fac tual determinations wh ic h w e mus t ho no r u nle ss the e vid e nc e pr e po nderates a g a ins t th os e fi nd ing s. Te nn . R. Ap p. P.-4-

13 (d ); W right v. City o

f Knoxville, 89 8 S. W.2 d 1 77 , 1 81 (T e nn .1 99 5) ; Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S. W

. 2 d 8 7 , 9 1 (Tenn.1993) . The trial c ourt' s conclusions of law, how ever , are acc orded no such pre sumption. Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp., 919 S.W .2d 26, 35 (Tenn.1996) ; Pre sle y v . B e nn e tt, 860 S.W .2d 857, 859 (Tenn.1993)

. An ea sement is an intere st in another ’s real property that confe rs on the ea sement holder an enfor cea ble rig ht to use that property for a specific use. Bradley v . McLeod, 984 S.W .2d 929, 934 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998) , Vineyard v . Betty, No. M2001-00642-COA- R3-CV, 2002 WL 772870 at *2, 2002 Tenn.App. L

EXI S 301 at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S., filed Apr. 30, 2002), no appl. perm. filed

. Th e mos t c omm on fo rm

of a n e a se me nt i s a

ri g ht o f p a ssa g e a c ro ss ano the r’ s p ro pe rt y . Se ve ra l f or ms of ea sements ar e re cog nized under Tenne ssee la w, i n cl uding e x press e aseme nts; easements by
r e s e rv ati o n s ; i mp li e d

e a sements; presc riptive ea sements; and ea sements by estoppel. Pevea r v. H

un t, 924 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1996).

I n this case we first look to see whe ther the e vidence supports the conclusion t hat Walker Gra y Haun ha d an either

a pre scriptive ea sement or an implied e aseme nt. To establish a pre scriptive
e a se me nt, a

pa rt y mus t pr ov e by

c le ar andc on vin c ing e vid e nc e that hi s o r h e r u se of the pr op e rt y

is: 1) adve rse, 2) under claim of rig ht, 3) continuous, uninterrupte d, open, visible, and e x clusive, 4) with the knowledg e and a cquiesc ence of the owne r of the se rvant tene ment, 5) fo r a pe ri odof le a st t we nty

y e ars
. Stone v. Brickey, 70 S.W. 3d82 , 8 6 ( Te nn .Ct .A pp .2 00 1) ; H o u s e v
. Cl o se, 3 4 6 S

. W.2d 445, 448 (Tenn.Ct.App.1961).

As noted above , a nec essary element of

a pre scriptive ea sement is that the per son asserting the ease ment used it in an ad v e rse ma nn e r. We ar e of the op ini on that Walk e r G ray Haun faile d to pr ov e thi s r e qu ir e d e le me nt. Pr ior to the jud g me nt a pp ro vin g the pa

rt iti on of the famil y

pr op e rt y in Aug ust of 2003, W al k er Gr ay Haun, L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. and the ir sister essentially held the property as tena nts in common. “[P] ossession by one tenant in common is not adver se to another co-te nant until a disseisin of the others by actua l ouster.” Pe ltzv . P e ltz , No. 01A01-9711- CH-00659, 1998 WL 717231 at *1,1998 Tenn.A pp.LEXI S 685 at *3 (Tenn.Ct.App.M.S., filed Oct. 14, 1998), no appl. perm. filed. T h e r e i s n o a l l e g a t i o n o r p r o o f o f o u s t e r i n t h e p r e s e n tc a s e
. C o n s e q u e n t l y, Walker Gray

Haun did not have an ea sement by presc ription.

To e s ta b li s h a n e a s e me n t b y

imp li c a ti o n , a

p ar ty a s s e r ti n g a n imp li e d e a s e me n t b e ar s the bu rd e n o f p ro vin g thr e e e le me nts : 1) a se pa ratio n o f t itl e ; 2) a nece ssity that, befor e the separ ation takes place, the use which g ives rise to t he ea sement shall have been so long continued and obvious or manifest as to show that it was me ant to be permanent; and-5-

3) a ne cessity

that the ease ment be essential to the bene ficial e njoy ment of the land g rante d
or re tained.
The Pointe, LLC . v. Lake M gmt. Assoc., 50 S.W. 3d47 1, 47 8; Fowler v. W ilbanks, 48 S.W .3d 738, 7 4 1 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 2 0 0 0 ) ( ci t i n g Johnson v. H eadrick , 34 Tenn. App. 294, 299, 237 S.W .2d 567, 570 (Tenn. Ct. App.1948))

. Whil e Tenne ssee courts have r equire d proof de monstrating a prescriptive ease ment to meet the “c lear and convinc ing” standard, w e have applied th e o rd i n ary preponde ranc e of the evidenc e standard i n case s involving an implied ea sement. See A llison v. Allis on, 193 S.W .2d 476 (T e nn .A pp .1 94 5) ; B a r re tt v. Hill, No. 01A01-9806- CV-00295, 1999 WL 802642, 1999 T enn.App.L

EXI S 879 (Tenn. Ct. App. M.S., filed Oct. 7, 1999) no appl. perm. filed ; Rhoades v. Taylor, No . M 20 01 -0 06 43 -C OA -R 3- CV , 2 00 3 WL 72 46 72 , 2 00 3 T e nn . A pp . L EX I S 17 7 ( Te nn . Ct

. App. M.S., filed Mar.4, 2003) , no appl. perm. filed

.
As the trial court corre ctly noted, the first e l em en t o f an implied ea sement as e numera ted above is not in dispute. There has bee n a sepa ration of t i t l e b y v i rt ue of the partitioning of the pr op e rt y in kinda mon g the Haun he ir s.
The sec ond element of an im plied ease ment require s us to look to t he intent of the pa rties at the time of sepa

ration of title. I n this case, we first revie w t h e t ra n sfer document to determine the intent of the parties. The tra nsfer document in this case is the judg ment confirming the partition of the prope rty

and it does not ref

lect the pa rties’ intent as to whe ther an ease ment was int ended. I n fac t the judg ment specific ally provides that “nothing contained in this judg ment shall prec lude Walker Haun Gr ay , his heirs or assig ns, from pursuing his rights, if any , in and to an alleg ed ea sement for
a c c e ss f or ing re ss a nd e g re ss a c ro ss Tr a c t 3 h e re in t o th e “ re nta l ho me ” situate d o n tr a c t 2Ahe re in
a llo tte d to Wal ke r G ray Haun .” Sin c e the jud g me nt s pe c if ic a lly do e s n ot a dd re ss the pa

rt ie s’ int e nt, we must look to the use of the parties to asc erta in their intent. Reg arding the leng th of continued, ob vio us us e of

the a c c e ss r oa d, Wal ke r G ray Haun ’s a ff

ida vit a lle g e s w ith ou t di sp ute a s f oll ow s:
Th a t I ha ve us e d, a s a

c hil d and

int o ad ul th oo d, the a c c e ss ro a d at is su e in thi s caus e sin c e 19 51

. F urthe rm or e , an d as an a du lt living upon this property , I have use d this acce ss road t o acc ess the
re n t al property

located upon my

property , and also for

ag ricultural purposes, for

almost thirty(30) y ear s. This use has bee n continuous during that time period. Th e e le c tr ic uti lit y lin e s to the re nta l pr op e rt y loc a te d u po n my pr op e rt y are loc a te d a lon g thi s subj e c t a c c e ss r oa d. [numbe ri ng in
o r ig in a l o mi tt e d ]

An ae rial photog raph of

the prope rty , which L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. testified wa s taken in 1950 wa s introduced into evide nce a nd clea rly shows the ac cess r oad at issue. Thus, Walker Gray Haun ha s-6-

established the second element, that the us e giving rise to the easement has been “so long continued and obvious or manife st as to show that it was meant to be pe rmane nt.”

L ouis Euge n e Ha u n , J r. ar g ues in his brief that “ a pre -partition j oint owner c annot re ceive a post-partition easement by presc ription or i mplication absent the parties’ specific intent to reser ve a rig ht of way .”

A ca ref ul review of the implied e aseme nt case s y ields the conc lusion that the releva nt and
re qu isi te int e nt, a t time s inf e rr e d by the c ou rt s by implication , perta ins to the use of the rig ht of way
ov e r t ime . T his is s e e n upo n exam inatio n of the se c on d r e qu ir e d e le me nt, that “ the use which g ives ri se to the e a se me nt shall have bee n so long continued and obvious or manifest as to show t hat it w as meant to be pe rmanent .” (Empha sis provided). As mig ht well be expected, L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. testified that at the time of the parti t i o n , he had no intent to g rant or r eser ve to his brother a n ease ment along the conteste d roadw ay . But the pr oof fully supports the in fe re n ce that the Haun fa mil y de mon str a te d, fo r ma ny y e ars prior to the pa rt iti on , a n in te nt that th e ro a dw a y be pe rm a ne nt.
As alre ady

noted, the roadw ay has been in e x istence and use for at least fifty y ear s. I t was ma int a ined, app are ntl y

joi ntl y wh e n th e Haun he ir s o wn e d it in c omm on , f

ro m r e nta l in c ome provided by

the re ntal house. The pr oof shows that ut i l ity lines to the rental house run along the roadw ay
. L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. also asse rts that the trial court should have consider ed the pr offe red aff idavi t o f th e th r e e c o mm is s io n e r s w h o d iv id e d th e p r o p e r ty p u r s u a n t to c o u r t o r d e r
. I n that aff idavit, the commissioners testified, among other thing s, that they “did not intend for the a lleg ed
ease ment as desc ribed a

bove to be g rante d W al k er Gray Haun a s a portion of his allotment of the partitioned lands.” T he trial c ourt g rante d Walker Gray Haun’ s m o t i o n i n l imine to ex clude the commissioners’ testimony , on the g rounds that it wa s irrele vant to the issue of the e x istence of an implied easeme nt. We ag ree with the trial court; it was not within the province of the commissioners’ duty

to establish or adjudicate an ease ment when they partitioned the prope rty . The decision to exclude their testimony was within the trial court’s discretion, and we do not find that the trial court abused its discretion.

The thi r d e le me n t, r e q u irin g a s h o w in g o f

n e c e s s it y th a t th e e a s e me n t b e e s s e n ti a l t o the benef icial enjoy ment of the land g rante d or re tained, is primarily the conteste d issue in this case. Th e pr e va ili ng ru le wi th r e sp e c t to imp lie d e a se me nt p ro vid e s th a t:

Where, during the unity of title, a n appar ently perma nent and obvious
se rv itu de is i mpo se d o n o ne pa rt of a n e state in f

a vo r o f ano the r p art , which ser vitude is in use at the t ime of seve ranc e and is ne cessa ry for the r e a s o n ab le e n

jo y me n t o f th e o th e r p ar t, o n a s e v e r a n c e o f the
o wn er s h ip the g rant of the rig ht to continue such use a rises by implication of law.-7-

Lively v. Noe , 460 S.W .2d 852, 854-55 (Te nn.Ct

. Ap p
. 1970). I n addition, as stated in Bradley v

. McLeod, e a se me nts by

imp lic a tio n o rd a in the pe rp e tuatio n o f the prior us e " on the g e ne ra l princ ipl e th at pro pert y is us ual lypas sed alo ng wi th it s b urd ens [ .] " Bradley, 98 4 S. W.2 d a t 93 4. Whe re a sin g le
owner sells portions of his or her pr opert y t o t wo diffe rent purc haser s, "the respe ctive portions g rante d are subject to or benefitted by , as the c ase ma y be, an e aseme nt corre sponding to such use ." Lively, 460 S.W .2d at 855.

Walker Gray

Haun’ s property has approx imately 441 fee t of fronta g e on Topside Road, a nd L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r. ar g ues that Walker Gr ay Haun could build a road g iving him ac cess to the renta l house from Topside Road on his own pr operty

. As reg ards the require d demonstration of nece ssity , Tenne ssee law interpre ts the concept of “nec essity ” as be ing “ rea sonably nece ssary ” for

the enjoy ment of the domi nant t eneme nt, as opposed to strict or absolute nec essity

. Rightsell v. Hale, 18 S.W. 24 5, 24 6 ( Te nn .1 89 1) ; The Po int e , LLC v. Lake M

gmt. Ass’n, Inc ., 5 0 S. W. 3 d 4 7 1 , 4 7 8 ( T e n n
. Ct

. A p p
. 2000); Jo h n son v. He adrick, 237 S.W. 2d56 7, 57 0 ( Te nn .Ct .A pp.194 8) ; Allison v. Allison, 193 S.W .2d 476, 477-78 (Tenn.Ct.App.1945).

Severa l experts testified as to the estimated cost of putting in the proposed r oad conne cting the re ntal house with Topside Road. One of Walker Gr ay Haun’ s experts estimated the cost at betwee n $40,000 and $60,000. Walker G ray Haun’ s other expert provided an estim ate of $37,685 and further testified tha t the estimate wa s “proba bly low.” L ouis Euge ne Haun, J r.’s ex pert estimated the c ost at “about $17,500" but admitted that his estimate did not include the cost of a
c ulv e rt that w ou ld l ike ly

be re qu ir e d, no r the pe rm it f e e s requ ire d b y

va ri ou s f e de ra l a ndstate ag encie s. Walker Gra y Haun testified that the cost of putting in the road is prohibitively expensive fo r h im. Our Supreme Court, in the case of Rightsell v. Hale, 18 S.W . 245 (Tenn.1891) was pre sented
w ith a s itu a ti o n b e ar in g ma n y s im il ar it ie s to th is o n e , o v e r 1 1 0 y e ar s a g o. The Ri gh tse ll Court
u p h el d an ea sement by

implication across the se rvient tene ment in order to a cce ss a public roa d, beca use of the unr eason ab l e expenditure re quired to cr eate another way
. Id; se e also Allison v. Allison, 1 9 3 S

. W

. 2 d 4 7 6 , 4 7 7 -7 8 (T en n
. C t

. Ap p
. 1 9 4 5 )( ci t i n g an d ap p l y i n g Ri gh tse ll rule but finding
no e a se me nt b e c a us e “ it w ou ld n ot i nv olv e a n u nr e a so na ble or dis pr op ortio nate e xpe nd itu re ” to cre ate a nother a cce ss way ).

Th e tr ia l c ou rt

fo un d th a t th e e vid e nc e de mon str a te d it wo uldinv olv e a n u nr e a so na ble expense to put in another acc ess road to provide Walker Gr ay Haun a cce ss via Topside Road. Afte r a re view of the rec ord, we hold that the evidenc e does not prepo n d er at e against the trial c ourt’s finding reg arding the unreasonable expense and that Walker Gray Haun ha s shown the ac cess r oad
a lr e a dy in e xiste nc e to b e re a so na bly ne c e ssa

ry to the c on tin ue d e njo y me nt o f h is p ro pe rt y , a s it is the only exis tent means of ingr ess and eg ress to his renta l house

. We a ffirm the judgme nt of the trial court finding Walker Gray Haun ha s an implied ease ment in the acc ess roa d.-8-

F ina lly , L ou is E ug e ne Haun , Jr. arg ue s th e tr ia l c ou rt e rr e d b y failing to a wa

rdhim

“ e qu iva le nt va lue fo r the dim ini sh e d wo rth of [his pr op e rt y ] a s e nc umb e re d by a n e a se me nt. ” Whil e this is an interesting and cre ative arg ument, we are not a war e of any authority which would require the owner of a se rvient tene ment to be co m p en s at ed by the dominant tenement’ s owner w hen an
ease ment by

implication is adjudicated. Ther efor e we hold that this arg ument is without m erit.

F or the afor eme nt io ne d r e a so ns , th e jud g me nt o f the tr ia l c ou rt is a ff ir me d a ndthe c a se rema nded for

collection of c osts below. Costs on appeal ar e assessed t o the Appellant, L ouis Euge ne Haun, Jr., and his surety

.

_________________________________________ SHARON G. LEE, J UDGE