Opinion ID: 1057735
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ownership of Remaining Portion of Alley

Text: Martin argues the circuit court erred in ruling there was no justiciable controversy with regard to his claim of ownership of the remaining length of the alley. A circuit court has the power to issue declaratory judgments under Code §§ 8.01-184 through -191. Pursuant to this authority, circuit courts may make 'binding adjudications of right' in cases of 'actual controversy' when there is 'antagonistic assertion and denial of right.' Miller v. Highland County, 274 Va. 355, 369–70, 650 S.E.2d 532, 538–39 (2007) (citing Code § 8.01-184; Hoffman Family, L.L.C. v. Mill 5 Martin also assigns error to the circuit court's reliance on two deeds recorded in 1794 and its disregard of the merger of the fee underlying the alley. Because the circuit court's judgment is supported by the language of the Miller deed, which all parties agree is determinative of Garners' ownership of the alley, discussion of these assignments of error is unnecessary. 7 Two Assocs. P'ship, 259 Va. 685, 692, 529 S.E.2d 318, 323 (2000); Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. St. Mary's Hosp., 245 Va. 24, 35, 426 S.E.2d 117, 123 (1993); Erie Ins. Group v. Hughes, 240 Va. 165, 170, 393 S.E.2d 210, 212 (1990)); see also Code § 8.01-191 (This article['s] . . . purpose is to afford relief from the uncertainty and insecurity attendant upon controversies over legal rights.); Charlottesville Area Fitness Club Operators Ass'n v. Albemarle Cnty., 285 Va. 87, 98, 737 S.E.2d 1, 6 (2013) (citing City of Fairfax v. Shanklin, 205 Va. 227, 229, 135 S.E.2d 773, 775 (1964)); Yukon Pocahontas Coal Co. v. Ratliff, 175 Va. 366, 368-69, 8 S.E.2d 303, 304 (1940). [A]n actual controversy is a prerequisite to a court having authority. If there is no actual controversy between the parties regarding the adjudication of rights, the declaratory judgment is an advisory opinion that the court does not have jurisdiction to render. The prerequisites for jurisdiction, an actual controversy regarding the adjudication of rights, may be collectively referred to as the requirement of a justiciable controversy. Fitness Club Operators, 285 Va. at 98, 737 S.E.2d at 6. The controversy, therefore, must be one that is 'justiciable,' meaning a controversy in which there are 'specific adverse claims.' Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 245 Va. at 35, 426 S.E.2d at 123 (quoting Shanklin, 205 Va. at 229, 135 S.E.2d at 775). [T]he declaratory judgment statute . . . 'contemplates that the parties to the proceeding shall be 8 adversely interested in the matter as to which the declaratory judgment is sought.' Chick v. MacBain, 157 Va. 60, 66, 160 S.E. 214, 216 (1931) (quoting Patterson v. Patterson, 144 Va. 113, 120, 131 S.E. 217, 219 (1926)). [T]he question involved must be a real and not a theoretical question; the person raising it must have a real interest to raise it; he must be able to secure the proper contradicter, that is to say, someone presently existing who has a true interest to oppose the declaration sought. Patterson, 144 Va. at 120, 131 S.E. at 219 (internal quotation marks omitted). Additionally, a controversy is justiciable only if the claim is 'based upon present rather than future or speculative facts, [that] are ripe for judicial adjustment.' Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 245 Va. at 35, 426 S.E.2d at 123 (quoting Shanklin, 205 Va. at 229, 135 S.E.2d at 775). The proof and allegation must aver a controversy beyond the realm of speculation. River Heights Assocs. v. Batten, 267 Va. 262, 268, 591 S.E.2d 683, 686 (2004); see also Fitness Club Operators, 285 Va. at 98, 737 S.E.2d at 6–7; Cupp v. Board of Supervisors, 227 Va. 580, 591, 318 S.E.2d 407, 412 (1984). In Martin's pleadings, he seeks a declaration that he owns the fee underlying the entire length of the alley. He does not allege, however, that the Abutting Owners have asserted an ownership interest in the alley. Although Martin alleges 9 generally that [e]ach of the Abutting Owners and/or their predecessors in interest have from time to time blocked, stopped up, and/or interrupted the alley and/or disputed Martin & Drewry's rights as owners of the fee underlying the alley, there is no allegation detailing a specific violation of Martin's alleged rights in the entire alley. (Emphasis added.) 6 Indeed, the Garners do not claim ownership of any portion of the alley other than that portion abutting their own property which was adjudicated by the circuit court. Thus, with respect to the portion of the alley not abutting the Garners' property, Martin's pleadings do not allege present facts evidencing a specific adverse claim between parties with true interest to oppose Martin's claim to ownership of the alley. Blue Cross & Blue Shield, 245 Va. at 35, 426 S.E.2d at 123 (quoting Shanklin, 205 Va. at 229, 135 S.E.2d at 775); Patterson, 144 Va. at 120, 131 S.E. at 219. See also Chick, 157 Va. at 66, 160 S.E. at 216. Contrary to Martin's argument, the fact that the Abutting Owners were before the court and the relevant deeds were in evidence, is insufficient to establish a justiciable controversy between the parties. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in dismissing Martin's claim seeking a 6 The Abutting Owners who did file pleadings have not asserted an ownership interest in the alley. 10 declaration of ownership as to the remaining length of the alley.