Tag: prescription

Easements and the Atlanta Beltline

Posted by Jeff on

A recent legal case regarding the Atlanta Beltline provides insightful reading for those interested in easements. In 2017, the Ansley Walk Condominium Association sued the Atlanta Development Authority, also known as Invest Atlanta, claiming ownership of three properties adjacent to the Beltline.

The case is complex, as the Norfolk Southern Railway Company initially operated the properties as a railway. However, in 2004, Norfolk relinquished its interests in the properties, which then became part of the Beltline. At the time of the transfer, Norfolk reserved an easement to cross over the properties.

In 2017, Norfolk signed an agreement to terminate its easement rights over the properties. However, the agreement was vague, so Norfolk signed a corrective agreement in 2020 to address the issue. Ansley Walk sued, alleging that when Norfolk relinquished its easement rights, Ansley Walk gained unrestricted ownership of the properties.

Ansley Walk claimed damages for inverse condemnation, trespass, attorneys’ fees, and litigation expenses. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, meaning they each sought a ruling in their favor without a trial. A summary judgment aims to expedite litigation and avoid the expense of a jury trial. However, a summary judgment can only be granted when there are “no genuine issues as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” OCGA § 9-11-56(c); Pfeiffer v. Ga. Dept. of Transp., 275 Ga. 827, 828 (2002).

After considering the arguments and the law, the trial court granted summary judgment to the Beltline and denied summary judgment to Ansley Walk. This means that, for now, the Beltline has won the case. However, Ansley Walk plans to appeal the decision and ask the Georgia Court of Appeals to review the trial court’s ruling.

In granting summary judgment, the trial court found that Ansley Walk failed to prove ownership of the three properties and that the 2020 corrective agreement properly canceled Norfolk’s easement rights. As a result, the Norfolk agreements about the easements did not transfer any property rights to Ansley Walk.

Although this case’s factual scenario is unlikely in most easement disputes, it is still an interesting example of how such disputes never go out of fashion. If you have a dispute regarding an easement, please contact us at 404-382-9994 to discuss your legal rights.

Adverse Possession and Property Disputes Clarified

Posted by Jeff on

The Georgia Court of Appeals issued a decision that provides some guidance to the often-unintuitive law known as adverse possession. In Houston v. James, A20A1689 (February 3, 2021), three siblings involved in a property dispute sued each other over a 28-acre parcel owned by their deceased father. One sibling lived on and took care of the 28 acres for more than 20 years. But his father left most of the property to the other two siblings. The sibling left out argued he owned the 28 acres by adverse possession. He claimed he had had publicly, continuously, uninterruptedly, and peaceably possessed the property for more than 20 years. His two siblings disagreed, arguing that the possession was without a “claim of right.”

To be adverse, possession must be for more than 20 years and must be public, continuous, exclusive, uninterrupted, peaceable, accompanied by a claim of right, and not originate in fraud. OCGA § 44-5-161(a). Also, and quite importantly, the party adversely possessing must have a “claim of right” to the property.

A claim of right means the possessor claims the property as his own. Under Georgia law, a claim of right, or adverse possession, will be presumed from the assertion of dominion, particularly where the possessor has made valuable improvements. See Childs v. Sammons, 272 Ga. 737, 739 (2) (534 SE2d 409) (2000). Georgia courts have held that there does not need to be direct evidence of the state of mind of the possessor concerning claim of title; however, there must be evidence of some claim of title in the sense that the possessor claims the property as his own. Walker v. Sapelo Island Heritage Authority, 285 Ga. 194, 674 S.E.2d 925 (2009).

In Houston, the Court of Appeals concluded that a jury must decide whether the sibling claiming the property by adverse possession did so with a claim of right. If you have a property dispute concerning adverse possession, please call us at 404-382-9994 to discuss your options.

Easements by Adverse Possession or Prescription

Posted by Jeff on

Georgia law allows a party to obtain a private way (or easement) over the land of another through a process known as prescription (also sometimes called adverse possession). See OCGA Section 49-4-40 et seq. This requires seven years’ uninterrupted use through improved lands. To show prescription, however, the party seeking an easement must show (1) uninterrupted use of the alleged private way, (2) that the private way is no more than twenty feet wide, (3) that he or she has kept the private way in repair, (4) and that the use was public, continuous, exclusive, peaceable, and accompanied by a claim of right. Finally, the use of the alleged easement must be adverse. This means that if the owner of the property gave permission to use the property, there cannot be adverse possession.

To obtain an easement over another’s land, the party seeking an easement must prove each of the above elements. All things being equal, the courts will favor the property owner over the party claiming an easement. This makes sense. Obtaining a legal right to go over someone else’s property should not be easy. On the other hand, a property owner should have some responsibility to know how his or her property is being used and to prevent unauthorized use.

A recent Georgia Court of Appeals case decided this issue. In Wilkes 581 Farms, LLC v. McAvoy, A20A1225 (September 18, 2020), a party claimed an easement over a road belonging owned by another party. The court ruled against an easement over the road because the property owner had given permission to use the road. Thus, the claim was not adverse. In other words, if a property owner gives permission, there cannot be adverse possession or prescription.

Secondarily, the court ruled that the party seeking an easement lost because he could not show his the use of the road was exclusive. Instead, the evidence showed that others used the road.

If you have an easement question or dispute, please call us at 404-382-9994.