#INGRESS EGRESS REGRESS RIGHTS TRIAL#

#INGRESS EGRESS REGRESS RIGHTS TRIAL#

Of the plaintiffs' eight assignments of error, the determinative issue on appeal is whether the trial court properly denied the defendants' G.S. Have the plaintiffs acquired an easement over the lands of the defendants *365 by the establishment of a neighborhood road in 1941? Have the plaintiffs acquired an easement over the lands of the defendants by adverse use of the road described in the Complaint for a period of twenty (20) years before this action was filed on February 25, 1983?Ģ.

Only the following two issues, answered in favor of the plaintiffs, were submitted to the jury:ġ. The defendants offered no evidence of their own at trial. Their motion was granted by the trial court. The complaint's second theory alleged that the plaintiffs have acquired an easement by prescription over the southwest boundary of the defendants' property.Īt trial, the plaintiffs filed a written motion to amend the pleadings to conform to the evidence in order to have submitted to the jury the issue of whether or not this roadway constituted a neighborhood public road under G.S. The plaintiffs first asserted that this roadway was dedicated to the public by the defendants' predecessor-in-title and others in a 1938 petition and right-of-way agreement offered to, but not accepted by, the State Highway and Public Works Commission. On 25 February 1983, the plaintiffs instituted this action against the defendants alleging two alternative theories in the complaint by which the plaintiffs could establish their right to use that portion of the road crossing the defendants' property. In 19, the plaintiffs executed right-of-way agreements with all the landowners, except the defendants, on whose property the roadway traversed. TOGETHER WITH the burdens and benefits of the right of way as described herein and as shown on the aforesaid plats, along and with the Southwestern boundary of the property and of a separate priveate road as described herein which bounds the Southeastern portion of the property. The deed also contains the following language: In this deed, the description of the southwest boundary refers to a road and to a plat which shows a twenty-foot roadway along this boundary. In 1980, the defendants purchased its 13.13-acre tract from John E. According to the plaintiffs, there exists a roadway reaching to the northwest up to Old Fort Road, and extending southeast across the defendants' and the Andersons' common boundary, across the Presbytery property to the Dotson tract. The Dotson tract and the defendants' tract is separated by a 200-acre tract of land owned by the Presbytery of Asheville. The remaining fourteen plaintiffs own a portion of a 129.40-acre tract of land (the Dotson tract) which is located east of the defendants' tract. The plaintiff-Andersons' 12.40-acre tract (hereinafter referred to as the Anderson tract) adjoins the southwest boundary of the defendants' property. We agree and order a new trial as to whether the plaintiffs can establish a prescriptive easement. The defendants appeal alleging errors in the admission of evidence and errors of law in failing to grant defendants' motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict.Īlso, defendants contend that it was prejudicial error to allow an amendment to the pleading to conform to the evidence and to charge on the issue of a neighborhood public road. In a jury trial the two issues of easement by twenty years' adverse use and easement by establishment of a neighborhood road were answered in plaintiffs' favor. An old logging road allegedly traversed the area. In this land lawsuit the plaintiffs want the right to a prescriptive easement over and along the southwest boundary line of the defendants' property for a right-of-way for ingress, egress, and regress to the plaintiff Anderson's adjoining property and to the remaining plaintiffs' remote and noncontiguous property. Lindsey, Asheville, for defendants-appellants. Michael Begley, Asheville, for plaintiffs-appellees. Burrell, and Roger Quentin Anderson and wife, Judith Ann Pulley Anderson Dwight Dotson and wife, Betty Dotson, Tony Daniel Dotson and wife, Miriam Dotson, Jim L. Dotson, Legally Separated, Mary Burton and husband, Wirron Burton, B. Dotson, Jesse Dal Dotson, Widower, Heidi F. Thad DOTSON and wife, Lillian Dotson, James R.

Ingress egress regress rights