Daniel B. Barge III v. Earl H. Sadler

Daniel B. Barge III, the plaintiff, owns 411.2 acres of land in rural Humphreys County.
Barge purchased a portion of the land on August 20, 1997, and the remainder on August 25, 1997.
Both tracts of land were purchased from the Gutierrez family. Ownership of the land prior to the
purchases is not a matter of record. The testimony at trial indicates that Barge's property and the
adjoining property of the defendants, Earl and Vera Sadler, may have been owned by the same
person at some time in the past. It also appears that Barge's property and the property of John
Sonday, another adjoining landowner, may have been under common ownership. The record does
not reflect whether the prior owners of Barge's tract had an easement for access to a public road;
clearly, however, Barge does not.

Although the property surrounding Barge's tract of land is predominantly wooded with
several hills and ridges, it appears that the adjoining landowners have access to a public road.
Several adjoining tracts of land abut Tumbling Creek Road, which is a public thoroughfare. Other
adjoining tracts abut Highway 230, which is also a public thoroughfare. To reach his property, Barge
must go through a maze of unpaved, heavily wooded roadways. He starts by driving a route located
on land that he leases from Gene Pruett. The route leads to an old, narrow, depressed roadbed
located on property occupied by the Accurate Arms Hunting Club. Upon reaching the roadbed,
Barge drives about two and a half miles before reaching the southeast corner of his land.

In 1997, Barge filed a petition in the Chancery Court for Humphreys County alleging that his
property is landlocked. In the petition, Barge contended that a parcel of land, at least 40 feet in
width, extending from the southwest portion of the Sadler's property to Tumbling Creek Road is the
most adequate and convenient location for an easement from his property to a public road. He
therefore requested that the trial court grant condemnation of this portion of the Sadler's land
pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. § 54-14-101 (2000 Supp.). Because the trial court found that Barge
enjoyed an easement by implication across Sonday's property to Highway 230, the court ruled that
Barge had failed to prove that his land was, in fact, cut off from a public road.1 Thus, the trial court
denied relief.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals concluded that the evidence preponderated against the trial
court's finding of an implied easement. Considering the matter further, the Court of Appeals held
that the evidence clearly established that Barge's property is landlocked, and as such, he is statutorily
entitled to an adequate and convenient outlet to a public road. Rather than remanding the case at this
juncture, the court further held that given the rough terrain of the area, the Sadler's property would
be the most adequate, convenient, and economical location for an easement. The Court of Appeals
remanded the case for appointment of a jury of view to lay off and mark a road through the Sadler's
land.

On appeal to this Court, the Sadlers raise two issues: (1) whether the Court of Appeals has
the authority, absent a report from a jury of view, to determine the property to be burdened by an
easement granted to a landlocked property owner; and (2) whether a landlocked property owner
seeking condemnation of private land for use as an easement from his or her property to a public
road must name all adjoining landowners as indispensable parties defendant.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded.

Unknown

Unknown

None