Palmer v. R. A. Yancey Lumber Corporation

803 S.E.2d 742 (2017)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D owns approximately 44 acres located right next to where Yancey (P) owns 317 contiguous acres. Both properties derived from the common ownership of Richard Richardson, dating back to the time of his death in 1828. P's property was left landlocked because there no access from the P Property to a public road by an express easement or any other means. When Richardson's property was subdivided, 'an implied easement by necessity for access and reasonable use and enjoyment of the P property was created by the law burdening the P Property and for the benefit of the D Property.' A private road has long been and continues to be 'the sole means of ingress and egress from the P Property to a public road,' which 'comprises some or all of P's easement by necessity.' P and its predecessors have used the Access Road 'for ingress and egress purposes, including but not limited to access for timbering and timber-related activity,' and 'the ability to timber the property is reasonably necessary for the enjoyment of the P Property.' P and D disagreed over 'the size and scope of the easement by necessity.' P prepared to harvest timber and wants to haul the logs using tractor-trailers instead of ten-wheel logging trucks. This would necessitate improving and widening the Access Road in certain locations. P got permission from the other property owners involved but D refused. P filed this declaratory judgment action against D. At trial, P testified that using tractor-trailers is the most efficient and cost-effective way to haul the logs-as opposed to using the shorter ten-wheel logging trucks. Moreover, it is the only way to haul the pine logs at full-length, which is the size best suited for P's sawmill equipment and most demanded in the lumber market. P presented the testimony of Foster, a land surveyor, who provided measurements of the Access Road on D Property to assist in specifically identifying the location and width of the modifications. Endsley, a procurement manager for a lumber manufacturer, American Hardwood Industries, with nearly 40 years of experience in the timber industry, testified for P as an expert witness regarding this industry, and specifically the economics and logistics of timber removal. According to Endsley, timber industry standards dictate the use of tractor-trailers for timbering the P Property based on both the volume and type of timber. Endsley also provided extensive testimony for modifying the Access Road. According to Endsley, the Access Road needs to be widened as the widths of the roadway at those locations are currently not suitable for even ten-wheel trucks. D did not offer any expert testimony to rebut Endsley's testimony. Palmer and friends testified about the heavy traffic that logging produced. D stated that she objected to the entrance to her property being widened because she did not want it to look like a commercial entrance. The court stated that the type of traffic permitted for a dominant landowner utilizing an easement by necessity is 'determined by the reasonable necessities for the enjoyment' of the dominant property. The circuit court made factual findings that it is reasonably necessary for P to use tractor-trailers to transport the timber, and to, in turn, widen its easement. The final order established P's right to the easement by necessity located across the Access Road setting forth in detail the specific modifications to the Access Road that the court found to be reasonably necessary to accommodate P's use. D appealed.