Opinion ID: 1907829
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Was the trial court's finding of a prescriptive easement against the weight of the evidence?

Text: ¶ 15. Graves argues that the finding of a prescriptive easement across their land was against the weight of the evidence. In response, Maples offers that this issue was never raised in a motion to reconsider at the chancery court. We have repeatedly held that a trial judge will not be found in error on a matter not presented to the trial court for a decision. Purvis v. Barnes, 791 So.2d 199, 203 (Miss. 2001). [T]here are certain errors that parties must bring to the attention of the trial judge in a motion for a new trial, or they will not be considered on appellate review. McLemore v. State, 669 So.2d 19, 24 (Miss.1996). These include all new matters, motions made upon the ground of inadequate or excessive damages, motions made for new trial where it is contended that the verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, and the denial of a continuance. Id.; see generally T. Jackson Lyons, Preservation of Claims and Error, Ency. of Miss. Law App. Prac. & Proc. § 11 (J. Jackson & M. Miller eds.2006). ¶ 16. The proper method to address any concerns about evidence would have been through a motion for a new trial pursuant to M.R.C.P. 59, which provides that a chancellor or other trial court sitting without a jury may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony, amend findings of fact and conclusions of law or make new findings and conclusions, and direct the entry of a new judgment. See also Purvis, 791 So.2d at 203 (Logically, the only way to present an error regarding a question such as this would be by way of a motion for a new trial). ¶ 17. Moreover, the record is replete with the testimony of more than a dozen witnesses who testified to the historical use of the road by the public and adjacent landowners. Sard-Mag Road had been used for decades by members of the community to access Black Creek and for property owners to access their timber. Graves himself repeatedly agreed that it was not reasonable to block access to the road; that Maple and Dantzler should have access to the road; that his blocking the road had nothing to do with Maple or Dantzler, but instead his personal problems with two local individuals; and that he agreed everybody used the roads and never needed to ask permission; and that he himself had never asked permission to use it in the decades before he acquired the land. Such ample testimony, including repeated admissions by Graves, are why the trial court deemed the road to be subject to a prescriptive easement. Additionally, the chain of title leading to Graves' purchase in 2002 indicates exceptions to the title for unrecorded easements and rights-of-way for existing roads (public or private). The trial court committed no error in its finding. ¶ 18. The trial court also found that Graves should have to pay the attorneys' fees of Maples and Dantzler. In his brief, Graves argues without citation that [t]here should be no requirement for defendants to pay any money to the plaintiffs for legitimately attempting to protect their property rights. It is long-settled that failure to cite any authority in support of claims of error precludes this Court from considering the specific claim on appeal. See Grey v. Grey, 638 So.2d 488, 491 (Miss. 1994). Additionally, this argument is procedurally barred as it was not raised in a motion to reconsider or motion for a new trial. See McLemore, 669 So.2d at 24 (before appellate court can review motions made upon the ground of inadequate or excessive damages they must be presented to the trial court). ¶ 19. The record is clear that Graves repeatedly ignored the orders of the trial court to cease blocking the road and depriving Maples and Dantzler of access. At one point, Graves went so far as to threaten designees of Maples with arrest, even though they were in possession of a lawful court order granting them access to the road. Graves also agreed in the first consent order that he would pay the costs of any attorneys' fees if disobeyed the order. That blatant disregard for the orders of the court, coupled with his repeated admissions at trial by which he actually agreed that blocking the road was wrong, that Maples and Dantzler should have access to the road, and that the road for decades had been used by the community, are reasons why the chancery court deemed an award of attorneys' fees to be warranted. They are also the reasons why the chancellor categorized the action as frivolous. The trial court committed no error in assessing Graves these costs.