Opinion ID: 1918901
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: anderson-tully

Text: ¶ 17. The road has been in existence and has provided access to the Anderson-Tully property since at least the 1830s. ¶ 18. Anderson-Tully and its lessees and Anderson-Tully's predecessors in interest and their lessees have made open, visible, continuous, and unmolested use of the road across the Keener property continuously since before 1923, which was the beginning of the memory of the oldest citizen in the community, for the purposes of: homesteads, farms, timber activities, hunting, and recreation. ¶ 19. Anderson-Tully has owned the Anderson-Tully property continuously since 1952, and Anderson-Tully and its lessees have made open, visible, continuous and unmolested use of the road across the Keener property continuously throughout their ownership for ingress and egress to the Anderson-Tully property, for the purposes of timber activities, hunting, and recreation. ¶ 20. About 1996-1997, Glen Brown, Anderson-Tully's block manager, encountered a locked gate where the road enters the south side of the Keener property. He cut the chain, inserted an Anderson-Tully lock and relocked the gate. Anderson-Tully acquiesced in the exclusion of others from the use of the road across the Keener property, while maintaining Anderson-Tully's use of the road as a matter of right across the Keener property. ¶ 21. Throughout its ownership, Anderson-Tully always accessed the 700 acres of its property lying between the creeks by the road as the only safe and reasonable means for vehicular access and logging activities. Prior to Keener's blocking the road, Anderson-Tully logged its property in 1981, 1982, 1987, 1988, 1990, and 1996 (until stopped by Keener). Before, during, and after all logging activities, Anderson-Tully performed maintenance on the road through the Keener property. Keener's predecessors, the Mann family, made no objection to the road maintenance and use of the road across the Keener property. Anderson-Tully was never obstructed from use of the road for logging or any other purpose until the fall of 1996 when Keener obstructed its use of the road. ¶ 22. Considering all of the evidence, we conclude that the chancellor's findings are not manifestly wrong and his application of the law was sound. Therefore, we will not disturb the ruling of the chancery court on appeal.
¶ 23. Keener contends that neither the complaint nor the amendment to the complaint filed by Wilson and Anderson-Tully made any mention of a claimed right to run utility lines along the road. Keener insists that by failing to put him on notice that they were seeking the right to run utility lines along the subject road, Wilson and Anderson-Tully deprived Keener of an opportunity to raise potential defenses. Wilson and Anderson-Tully counter by arguing that their claim to a right to run underground utilities on their prescriptive easement across the Keener property was never based on any claim that the road had served as access to any homestead from 1969 until 2001 or that there had ever been utilities along the road other than those run by Keener to his own house and camp. Wilson and Anderson-Tully claim that the right to run utilities was based on the fact that their prescriptive easements were acquired and created, in part, to provide access to home sites and deer camps, and that by today's standards not only all home sites, but even the most primitive deer camps, require utilities for the reasonable and necessary enjoyment. ¶ 24. In Bivens v. Mobley, 724 So.2d 458 (Miss.Ct.App.1998), the Court of Appeals stated that the `uses that are reasonably necessary for enjoyment of an easement change over time as technology changes and as use of the dominant and servient estates changes.' Due to advances in technology, the right to run utilities is now considered reasonable and necessary for the enjoyment of a house or even a deer camp. Also, the running of underground utilities would not place any additional burdens on the servient estate, and Keener has run similar utilities over the Greenberg and Gage properties to his home and deer camp. ¶ 25. Keener also argues that any reliance on Bivens is misplaced, because that case dealt with a negotiated easement in a deed and by contrast, the current case alleged a prescriptive easement. Moreover, Keener asserts that Wilson and Anderson-Tully testified that they were seeking this easement for the purposes of logging and hunting. Once again, Keener seeks to narrow the scope of a decision without giving full regard to the entirety of the issued opinion. The comments made by the court in Bivens are not limited to simply a negotiated easement, but reflect the attitude of the court on the issue as a wholetechnological advancements can effect an easement in such a way as to make the advancements essential to the use and enjoyment of the easement. ¶ 26. Contrary to Keener's contention, the record does include instances where the issue of utilities is discussed. Robert Wilson offered testimony regarding utilities, as follows: Q. Do you claim a prescriptive easement across the Keener property on behalf of yourself and your brother's trust? A. Correct Q. And describe the access that you have had and used prescriptively. Was there any restriction on it as to day or time that it could be used? A. No. Until that time that gate was put up for whatever it was, two, three, or four months, you just turned off 552 and go right on back. Nobody would say anything to you, stop you, ask what you were doing back or anything. I'd like to add to, you are talking about the use of it. My son plans to build a hunting cabin or hunting lodge or residence back there on Linwood. So, if he were blocked, he would have no way to get in and out. Q. Do you feel that you should be allowed to run utilities back as Mr. Keener has along the portion of the road leading up to him? A. Definitely. The chancery court also found that the facts regarding utilities along all parts of the road was sufficiently developed in the evidence. ¶ 27. Furthermore, at the conclusion of the testimony offered by Wilson, Keener did not seek a continuance to further develop and present evidence on the issue of utilities. Keener was given notice of the utilities issue and an opportunity to be heard; therefore, he did not suffer a violation of his due process rights. After reviewing all of the relevant information contained in the record, we find that the chancellor did not err in granting Wilson and/or Anderson-Tully the right to install underground utilities along the road over the property of Keener. The chancellor's findings were not manifestly wrong or clearly erroneous; and therefore, we will not disturb his conclusions on appeal.