Preview:

rel:

05/27/2011

Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , A l a b a m a A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r .

ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011

2090615 John F. H o l l i n g s w o r t h e t a l . v. Bryan Richardson e t a l . Appeal from Lauderdale C i r c u i t Court (CV-08-238.80) PITTMAN, J u d g e . T h i s a p p e a l , t a k e n f r o m a summary j u d g m e n t e n t e r e d b y t h e Lauderdale certain Circuit Court, who lies concerns own next the relative in a Lake, rights of residential a man-made

landowners that

properties t o Wilson

subdivision

2090615 reservoir in northwest Alabama fed by the waters of the

Tennessee R i v e r . Although a copy
1

of we

the may

pleadings infer

i n the

c a s e does filings in

not the

appear i n the r e c o r d ,

from o t h e r Lou

r e c o r d t h a t i n 2008 J o h n F. H o l l i n g s w o r t h , Angela Hollingsworth, Richardson, that the the and J o s e p h K.

Hollingsworth, sued Bryan

Hollingsworth

F l o y d C h a m b e r l a i n , and J o y c e C h a m b e r l a i n , a l l e g i n g built civil a s t r u c t u r e on action, which lands was owned by

d e f e n d a n t s had The

plaintiffs. c a s e no. c o u r t , but

initially a

assigned federal new The

CV-08-238.00, was was

apparently trial

removed t o

remanded t o t h e

c o u r t , where a assigned. thereafter

c a s e number d e s i g n a t i o n ( n o .

C V - 0 8 - 2 3 8 . 8 0 ) was carrier

C h a m b e r l a i n s ' homeowners' i n s u r a n c e

We n o t e t h a t an a p p e n d i x t o t h e a p p e l l a n t s ' b r i e f c o n t a i n s d o c u m e n t s , w h i c h do n o t a p p e a r i n t h e r e c o r d , t h a t p u r p o r t t o be p l e a d i n g s i n t h e c a s e . Those d o c u m e n t s h a v e n o t been c o n s i d e r e d i n d e c i d i n g t h i s a p p e a l . I t a p p e a r s t h a t we must a g a i n r e i t e r a t e t h a t t h i s c o u r t does n o t consider " a p p e n d i c e s " t o b r i e f s t h a t do n o t c o n t a i n e i t h e r m a t e r i a l t h a t a l s o a p p e a r s i n t h e a p p e l l a t e r e c o r d (see S l e p i a n v. S l e p i a n , 355 So. 2d 714, 716 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1977)) o r s t a t u t o r y o r r e g u l a t o r y m a t e r i a l as t o w h i c h R u l e 2 8 ( h ) , A l a . R. App. P., a p p l i e s . R u l e 1 0 ( f ) , A l a . R. App. P., s e t s f o r t h t h e p r o p e r mechanism f o r s u p p l e m e n t i n g a r e c o r d i n a c i v i l a c t i o n , and t h a t r u l e s h o u l d be f o l l o w e d i f one s e e k s t o h a v e t h i s c o u r t c o n s i d e r m a t t e r t h a t has b e e n o m i t t e d f r o m t h e record.
1

2

2090615 sought permission, a n d was allowed, to intervene f o r the

l i m i t e d purposes of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n discovery special findings i n t h e e v e n t o f an e n t r y

and r e q u e s t i n g

o f a judgment i n

favor of the p l a i n t i f f s . The plaintiffs filed a motion f o r a summary judgment,

s u p p o r t e d b y a number o f e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s p e r t a i n i n g t o the the p a r t i e s ' chains United States Valley of t i t l e Army Corps and t h e r e g u l a t o r y of Engineers ("TVA") approval of

("COE")

and t h e the

Tennessee construction

Authority

authorizing

of a p i e r

and walkway,

i . e . , t h e improvements

that are p r i m a r i l y at issue. to t h e summary-judgment given

The d e f e n d a n t s f i l e d a r e s p o n s e r e l y i n g p r i m a r i l y upon an

motion,

affidavit

by a l o c a l

TVA p r o g r a m manager.

In October

2009, t h e t r i a l

court denied the p l a i n t i f f s '

summary-judgment trial. for a

m o t i o n a n d s e t t h e c a s e f o r a F e b r u a r y 2010 b e n c h In January 2010, t h e d e f e n d a n t s filed

a motion

summary j u d g m e n t , c o n t e n d i n g t h a t t h e p l a i n t i f f s h a d f a i l e d t o show t h a t possession they held title t o , o r were o t h e r w i s e e n t i t l e d t o

of, t h e l a n d l o c a t e d below a h i s t o r i c a l survey l i n e

d e l i n e a t i n g an e l e v a t i o n o f 509.34 f e e t above mean s e a l e v e l ("the 509.34 c o n t o u r l i n e " ) where t h e p i e r a n d w a l k w a y h a d

3

2090615 b e e n b u i l t ; among o t h e r e v i d e n t i a r y e x h i b i t s , t h e d e f e n d a n t s relied that upon t h e a f f i d a v i t they had p r e v i o u s l y of the l o c a l filed. The TVA p r o g r a m manager plaintiffs filed a

response to

i n opposition, upon w h i c h

a v e r r i n g that they held record t h e p i e r and walkway had been

title built

the land

and,

i n the a l t e r n a t i v e , that they held t i t l e pursuant t o the The p l a i n t i f f s ' e v i d e n t i a r y s u b m i s s i o n defendants' summary-judgment g i v e n by motion another from

doctrine of accretion. in response to the

included,

among o t h e r t h i n g s ,

an a f f i d a v i t

TVA manager c o n t a i n i n g that appearing that

testimony that d i f f e r e d s l i g h t l y given by by

i n the a f f i d a v i t had been moved submitted to strike

t h e TVA p r o g r a m The

manager

the defendants.

plaintiffs

also

the a f f i d a v i t

o f t h e TVA alleging federal of TVA

p r o g r a m manager that the

upon w h i c h had

the defendants failed to

relied, with

defendants

comply of

regulations employees. After strike

concerning

procurement

testimony

a hearing,

the t r i a l

court

denied

the motion

to

and g r a n t e d t h e d e f e n d a n t s '

summary-judgment

motion.

4

2090615 The plaintiffs a p p e a l was

Download 2090615.pdf

Alabama Law