Court Opinion

ID: 9848991
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:32:02.85856+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:56.322849
License: Public Domain

Judge Wynn
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent because in my opinion the trial court erred in not granting the defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. The evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, the plaintiff in the case at bar, does not support a finding *421that the use of the roadway in question was hostile, adverse or under a claim of right. Air Traffic Conference of Am. v. Marina Travel, Inc., 69 N.C. App. 179, 316 S.E.2d 642 (1984) (stating the standard for granting a directed verdict). Absent such a finding, the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case for a prescriptive easement.
As the majority notes, “[t]he law presumes that the use of a way over another’s land is permissive or with the owner’s consent unless the contrary appears.” Dickinson v. Pake, 284 N.C. 576, 580, 201 S.E.2d 897, 900 (1974). In order to rebut the presumption of permissive use, evidence must be presented that establishes a hostile use. Id. at 581, 201 S.E.2d at 900. Following this same reasoning, evidence of an express grant of permission should act to render such permission irrebuttable.
In the case at bar, permission to use the right of way in question was granted expressly by the grandfather of defendant Oberia Beck Golden and great-grandfather of defendant Jackie Golden to the family of the plaintiff, Constance Mitchell, in 1918. An express grant of permission never passed directly from the defendants to the plaintiff, but it is illogical to conclude that renewed grants of permission are necessary where the land has passed, as it has done here, from generation to generation within the same families. The fact that the title to each tract of land involved has changed hands within the respective families should not act to withdraw permission to use the roadway and make subsequent use adverse, hostile or under a claim of right.
Even if the 1918 grant of permission did not extend to the plaintiff, the evidence does not support a hostile use of the roadway. In order for a use to be considered hostile, “[t]here must be some evidence accompanying the user which tends to show that the use is hostile in character and tends to repel the inference that it is permissive and with the owner’s consent.” Id. No such evidence has been offered by the plaintiff. Constance Mitchell admits that she neither sought permission to use the roadway nor did the defendants object to her use. This “is tantamount to an assertion that [she] used the roadway in silence. ‘Neither law nor logic can confer upon a silent use a greater probative value than that inherent in a mere use.’ The mere use of a way over another’s land cannot ripen into an easement by prescription no matter how long it may be continued.” Godfrey v. Van Harris Realty, Inc., *42272 N.C. App. 466, 469-70, 325 S.E.2d 27, 29 (1985) (quoting Henry v. Farlow, 238 N.C. 542, 544, 78 S.E.2d 244, 246 (1953)).
The majority applies the plaintiff’s maintenance of the roadway to elevate her position from that of a mere user to that of an owner of an easement by prescription. The plaintiff’s testimony, however, shows that such maintenance consisted of putting gravel on the roadway on three separate occasions: 1951, 1956, and 1986. The plaintiff did not own the land to which the roadway leads until 1958 and the graveling done in 1951 and 1956 was done on behalf of her mother-in-law, Lillie Mitchell, who made no adverse claim of right to the roadway. The one isolated incident of graveling in 1986 is not sufficient to establish the continuous adverse use necessary for an easement by prescription. See Orange Grocery Co. v. CPHC Investors, 63 N.C. App. 136, 304 S.E.2d 259 (1983) (defining a hostile use as “a use of such nature and exercised under such circumstances as to manifest and give notice that the use is being made under a claim of right”). Moreover, the testimony of members of the plaintiff’s family regarding repair work done by them on the roadway does not rebut the presumption of permissive use. It appears that the family dug trenches along the edges of the roadway and placed leaves, sawdust, or gravel over the roadway so that their automobiles would not become stuck. This slight maintenance is consistent with a permissive use of the roadway under the present circumstances. The plaintiff’s family did not maintain the roadway exclusively, and, in fact, the main graveling of the roadway was done by the State of North Carolina.
The majority relies on the Dickinson and Potts v. Burnett, 301 N.C. 663, 273 S.E.2d 285 (1981), cases to find that the aforementioned maintenance by the plaintiff’s family members constitutes use that is hostile, adverse or under a claim of right. In both Dickinson and Potts, as in the case at bar, the plaintiffs neither asked for permission to' use the roadway nor were they told they could not. The plaintiffs in Dickinson, however, believed they owned the roadway and began using it before the defendant acquired title to the servient estate. 284 N.C. at 584, 201 S.E.2d at 902. The Potts Court relied on Dickinson to find a prescriptive easement, noting that “[although there was no evidence that plaintiffs thought they owned the road, there was abundant evidence that plaintiffs considered their use of the road to be a right and not a privilege.” 301 N.C. at 668, 273 S.E.2d at 289 (emphasis in original). Despite the assertion by the plaintiff that she had *423a right to use the roadway, the relationship of the parties in the case at bar allows for no error of ownership, nor is there an abundance of evidence to support a finding that the plaintiff considered her use of the road to be a right beyond that quasi-right associated with permissive use.
For the foregoing reasons, I respectfully dissent.