Court Opinion

ID: 9925993
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-23 17:13:42.272312+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:21:57.713979
License: Public Domain

COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

              Present: Judges O’Brien, AtLee and Malveaux
UNPUBLISHED

              Argued at Norfolk, Virginia

              THOMAS E. MORRIS, ET AL.
                                                                              MEMORANDUM OPINION* BY
              v.        Record No. 1700-22-1                                 JUDGE MARY GRACE O’BRIEN
                                                                                  JANUARY 23, 2024
              ANTHONY HEATH PARKER, ET AL.

                                  FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF CHESAPEAKE
                                                  John W. Brown, Judge

                                 Douglas E. Kahle (Basnight, Kinser, Leftwich & Nuckolls, P.C., on
                                 briefs), for appellants.

                                 Mark R. Baumgartner (Kristen R. Jurjevich; Pender & Coward, P.C.,
                                 on brief), for appellees.

                        Thomas and Karen Morris appeal a final order that denied their claim for an implied

              easement over a right of way allegedly abutting their property and that refused to enjoin their

              neighbors, Anthony and Donna Parker, from interfering with their use of the purported easement.

              The Morrises argue the court misapplied the law of implied easements by requiring proof of

              necessity and prior use of the right of way. The Morrises also contend the court erred by

              ignoring evidence that their right to use the easement was created “pursuant to the deeds and

              recorded plats and surveys appearing in their chain of title.” For the following reasons, we

              affirm.

                        *
                            This opinion is not designated for publication. See Code § 17.1-413(A).
                                          BACKGROUND

       In October 1998, the Morrises acquired a tract of land in Chesapeake consisting of two

parcels, “Parcel 3” and “Parcel 5” (collectively, the “Morris property”). At the time of

conveyance, Parcel 3 comprised the west side of the Morris property and Parcel 5 comprised the

east side. The 1998 deed incorporated a land survey showing the two parcels. As reflected in

the survey, a right of way named “Flurry Road” borders Parcel 5 on its east side. More recent

land records identify Flurry Road as “Fluridy Road.” The Morrises have never used any right of

way they claim to be Flurry/Fluridy Road; instead, they access the Morris property via

Sanderson Road (southern border) and Foreman Road (western border).

       The Parkers own two parcels of land on the other side of the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road,

which they acquired in 2003 (collectively, the “Parker property”). The two parcels are depicted

as “Tract D” and “Tract E” on a plat attached to their 2003 deed.1 The Parkers access their home

via a gravel road, which they claim is depicted on the plat attached to their 2003 deed as a dotted

“dirt lane” to the east of their property line and thus entirely on their property (the “gravel road”).

       In 2017, the Morrises re-subdivided the Morris property, eliminating Parcel 5 and

creating a smaller “Parcel 5-A” that now borders Flurry/Fluridy Road as depicted on a 2017 plat.

       The Morrises wanted to sell Parcel 5-A and install a driveway connecting Parcel 5-A to

the gravel road, which they assert is the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road and which would provide

access to a public thoroughfare to the south. When Thomas Morris discussed the proposed

driveway with Anthony Parker, however, Parker objected and told Morris that he could not “use

[Parker’s] property.” In January 2020, the Morrises filed a declaratory judgment action against

the Parkers, seeking an order “confirming [the Morrises’] right . . . to use [the gravel road] to

       1
        The Parker property stretches across a city boundary line dividing Chesapeake to the
west and Virginia Beach to the east.
                                              -2-
access the Morris Property” and to “enjoin the [Parkers] from interfering with or otherwise

impeding that right.”

       After the parties exchanged discovery, the Morrises moved for summary judgment,

arguing that the undisputed evidence demonstrated they had an implied easement across the

gravel road and the Parkers had no basis for denying them access.2 Opposing the motion, the

Parkers argued that the Morrises “fail[ed] to provide the [c]ourt with any reasonably accurate

description of the location of the easement” and the “burden rests squarely on the [Morrises] to

prove the grant or dedication of an easement, and the location and scope of that easement.” The

court denied the summary judgment motion, finding inter alia “[d]isputes of material fact

regarding . . . the location of the alleged easement in comparison to that of the [Parker]s’

driveway.”

       The parties proceeded to trial. The Morrises introduced evidence, including expert

testimony from title examiner Tiffany Abramowski, showing that the Morris property and the

Parker property were once owned by a common grantor, that the Morrises’ deed as well as the

Parkers’ deed, together with other deeds and documents in their chains of title, consistently

describe their respective properties by reference to a 1909 subdivision plat recorded in the clerk’s

office for the city of Chesapeake, and that this 1909 subdivision plat depicts the Morris property

and the Parker property abutting Flurry/Fluridy Road, directly across from one another.

       Abramowski testified that, consistent with the 1909 subdivision plat, the plat attached to

the Parkers’ 2003 deed shows that the Parker property abuts the east side of Flurry/Fluridy Road

and that Flurry/Fluridy Road, as platted, is not located within the boundaries of the Parker

property. She stated that, in her expert opinion, the land records established that neither the

Morrises nor the Parkers owned the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road.

       2
           The Morrises abandoned an adverse possession claim asserted in their initial complaint.
                                              -3-
       Abramowski did not testify about the physical location of Flurry/Fluridy Road, merely its

location as platted in the land records. Regarding the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road, she testified

that she did not know “[w]hether it was developed or not, whether it’s gravel or dirt or whatever”

and “[t]here’s no way to really tell exactly where it is.”

       The Morrises introduced a photograph of a “Fluridy Road” street sign posted at the gravel

road leading to the Parkers’ residence. However, Thomas Morris testified, “I don’t know” when

asked whether the gravel road was “in the same place” as the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road. He

acknowledged that a large ditch separates the parties’ properties.

       The Parkers disputed that the gravel road was the same as the Flurry/Fluridy Road

depicted in land records. Instead, Anthony Parker testified that the gravel road is located on the

Parker property, to the east of a “pin” marking his property’s western boundary. The Parkers

maintained that the Flurry/Fluridy Road, as platted, is undeveloped and actually runs along the

ditch separating the parties’ respective properties:

               [T]here’s a ditch, and that’s where [Flurry/]Fluridy Road is platted.
               And if Mr. Morris wants to fill in that ditch and get approval
               from . . . the [c]ity to fill in that ditch and build himself a
               superhighway, he can do that, but what he can’t do is come to this
               [c]ourt and say, “I want to drive across Mr. Parker’s lane” without
               first establishing Mr. Parker’s lane is within the right-of-way that
               was platted as Flurry Road. And it’s not. There’s no evidence to
               say that it does.

Counsel for the Parkers proffered, without objection, that the “Fluridy Road” street sign was

yellow and thus denoted a private-property lane rather than a city street. Additionally, Parker

pointed out that neither the Morrises nor their predecessors in title had ever used the purported

easement and therefore any rights had been abandoned. Finally, Parker testified that he had

improved the gravel road, once used primarily for hunting access, into a driveway for his

residence.

                                                 -4-
        Neither party presented testimony from a surveyor indicating whether Flurry/Fluridy

Road, as platted, matches or does not match any actual, on-the-ground location. In other words,

no surveyor testified for the Morrises that the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road matches the gravel

road, and no surveyor testified for the Parkers that Flurry/Fluridy Road matches the ditch

separating the parties’ properties.3

        After considering the evidence and post-trial briefs, the court issued a letter opinion

finding that the Morrises failed to “establish an implied easement.” To reach this conclusion, the

court applied a three-prong test from Russakoff v. Scruggs, 241 Va. 135 (1991):

                        While the extent of the easement rights is determined by
                the circumstances surrounding the conveyance which divides the
                single ownership, the existence of the [implied] easement is
                established on a showing that (1) the dominant and servient tracts
                originated from a common grantor, (2) the use was in existence at
                the time of the severance, and that (3) the use is apparent,
                continuous, and reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the
                dominant tract.

Id. at 139 (alteration by trial court).

        The court “[a]ssum[ed] without deciding that the first element, the presence of a common

grantor, ha[d] been established.” However, it found “no evidence . . . that the use was in

existence at the time of the severance or that it was apparent, continuous, and reasonably

necessary.”

        The court entered a final order incorporating its letter opinion and dismissing this matter

with prejudice. This appeal followed.

        However, we note that it was the Morrises’ burden to prove the location of the
        3

easement, not the Parkers’ burden to disprove any claimed location. See Mulford v. Walnut Hill
Farm Grp., LLC, 282 Va. 98, 112 (2011).
                                              -5-
                                             ANALYSIS

       The Morrises argue the court misapplied the law of implied easements—by requiring them

to prove that use of their claimed right of way was “in existence at the time of the severance” and

“apparent, continuous, and reasonably necessary,” under Russakoff. They argue that, as grantees

of property conveyed with reference to a subdivision plat, they are automatically entitled to an

easement in a right of way adjoining their property, pursuant to Lindsay v. James, 188 Va. 646

(1949), and Ryder v. Petrea, 243 Va. 421 (1992). We do not reach the issue of whether the

Morrises were required to show prior use and necessity, however, because the Morrises failed to

prove a key threshold fact: the physical location of their claimed easement.

       “It is well-established that the party who claims an easement bears the burden of proving the

fact.” Mulford v. Walnut Hill Farm Grp., LLC, 282 Va. 98, 112 (2011). “Both declaration and

enforcement of an easement are equitable remedies, and he who seeks such equitable relief must

prove ‘the facts that give rise to the easement, whether by express grant or reservation, by

implication, or by other means.’” Id. (quoting Brown v. Haley, 233 Va. 210, 217 (1987)).

       Here, the Morrises claim an implied easement over the gravel road, which the Parkers

improved and use to access their residence, arguing that it is the Flurry/Fluridy Road depicted in

the land records. However, based on our review of the record, the Morrises presented

insufficient proof linking the gravel road to the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road.

       The Morrises’ evidence primarily consisted of deeds and plats tracing the parties’

properties back to a common grantor. The deeds in the chains of title describe the properties by

reference to a 1909 subdivision plat depicting Flurry/Fluridy Road, and the plats depict

Flurry/Fluridy Road running between the properties. Based on these land records, the Morrises’

title examiner opined that both the Morris property and Parker property abut Flurry/Fluridy

Road, directly across from one another.

                                                 -6-
       However, neither the land records nor the title examiner’s testimony established that the

platted Flurry/Fluridy Road corresponds to the actual gravel road over which the Morrises claim

an easement. The title examiner testified that she did not know whether the platted

Flurry/Fluridy Road had ever been improved or developed. Similarly, Thomas Morris himself

testified he did not know whether the gravel road was “in the same place” as the platted

Flurry/Fluridy Road. He acknowledged that a large ditch separates the parties’ properties. The

Morrises’ evidence did not resolve whether this ditch, not the gravel road, aligns with the platted

Flurry/Fluridy Road and would be where Flurry/Fluridy Road would exist if developed.

       Other evidence in the record indicates that the gravel road is entirely on the Parker

property. Specifically, Anthony Parker testified that the gravel road is the “dirt lane” on the plat

attached to his 2003 deed and lies to the east of the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road; thus, it is within

his property’s boundary. Parker observed a boundary-marking pin in the ditch separating the

parties’ properties, and he testified that the gravel road was to the east of that pin and thus wholly

on his property.

       Although the gravel road has a street sign that reads “Fluridy Road,” the Morrises offered

no testimony about who posted the sign and when, or whether it signifies a city street or a lane

across private property. Without objection, counsel for the Parkers proffered that the street sign

denotes a private lane. Only through speculation could a fact finder conclude, based on the street

sign, that the gravel road is the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road.

       We note that the Morrises did not present testimony from a surveyor establishing that the

gravel road corresponds to Flurry/Fluridy Road. The trial court pointed out this lack of evidence

as well. Although failure to present testimony from a surveyor is not per se fatal to an implied

easement claim, on this record we find that the evidentiary gap is significant and requires

affirming the judgment denying the claim, albeit for a different reason.

                                                -7-
        “Under the right-result-different-reason principle, an appellate court ‘do[es] not hesitate, in a

proper case, where the correct conclusion has been reached but [a different] reason [is] given, to

sustain the result [on an alternative] ground.’” Laney v. Commonwealth, 76 Va. App. 155, 162 n.3

(2022) (alterations in original) (quoting Vandyke v. Commonwealth, 71 Va. App. 723, 731 (2020)).

Appellate courts “may uphold a judgment . . . as long as the record contains sufficient information

to support the proper reason.” Haynes v. Haggerty, 291 Va. 301, 305 (2016) (finding sufficient

information in the record that a plaintiff’s cause of action accrued before a new statute of limitations

took effect and departing from a trial court’s constitutional analysis in affirming dismissal). Here,

the record contains sufficient information for us to conclude that the Morrises failed to prove that

the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road corresponds to the gravel road. The bulk of their evidence was

introduced to trace the parties’ properties to a common grantor and to identify a platted right of way,

but nothing sufficiently linked the platted right of way to an actual location and therefore could not

support a decision granting access thereto. See Eagle Lodge, Inc. v. Hofmeyer, 193 Va. 864, 877

(1952) (“In Virginia and elsewhere generally it may be said that the law is jealous of a claim to an

easement, and the burden is on the party asserting such a claim to prove its elements clearly.”).

        Because the Morrises failed to prove the location of their claimed easement, we need not

address whether the court erred by requiring them to establish necessity and prior use. “We have

an ‘obligation to decide cases on the best and narrowest grounds available.’” Theologis v. Weiler,

76 Va. App. 596, 603 (2023) (quoting Esposito v. Va. State Police, 74 Va. App. 130, 134 (2022)).

“The ‘best’ answer to a legal question is” the answer with which “the greatest number of jurists

would agree.” Butcher v. Commonwealth, 298 Va. 392, 396 (2020). “The ‘narrowest’ answer to a

legal question is the one affecting the [fewest] number of cases.” Id. In this case, rather than

adjudicate the proper framework for assessing the Morrises’ implied easement claim, we hold that

                                                  -8-
the “best” and “narrowest” ground is that the Morrises failed to prove the location of the claimed

easement.

       Finally, although the court did not expressly determine whether the Morrises proved the

easement’s location, we decline to remand for further factfinding. In denying the Morrises’

summary judgment motion, the court found disputes of material fact regarding the “location of

the alleged easement in comparison to that of the [Parker]s’ driveway.” This ruling put the

Morrises on notice that at trial they would have the burden to prove the easement’s location in

relation to the gravel road. Based on our review of the record, they failed to carry that burden.4

The parties’ litigation of this issue below—although not essential to the application of the

right-result-different-reason doctrine—developed an adequate foundation for the Court to affirm

on this basis. See Perry v. Commonwealth, 280 Va. 572, 580 (2010); Haynes, 291 Va. at 305.

                                          CONCLUSION

       For these reasons, we affirm the judgment denying the Morrises’ claim for an implied

easement over the gravel road.

                                                                                            Affirmed.

       4
          Our ruling does not preclude the Morrises from instituting an action alleging an
easement over a different location that might correspond to the platted Flurry/Fluridy Road. See
Anderson v. Delore, 278 Va. 251, 259 (2009) (noting that the holding was limited to a particular
issue and did not preclude a future request for relief other than “the subject of th[e present]
litigation”).
                                                -9-