United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUnited States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Uploaded by
Scribd Government Docs960 F.
2d 147
NOTICE: Fourth Circuit I.O.P. 36.6 states that citation of
unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing
res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires
service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Fourth
Circuit.
Norman W. STEVENSON; Jacquelin K. Stevenson, As
Executor
and Executrix of the Estate of Thomas C.
Stevenson, Jr., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; State of South Carolina,
Defendants-Appellees.
No. 91-2512.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit.
Argued: February 3, 1992
Decided: April 21, 1992
Before SPROUSE and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior
Circuit Judge.
ARGUED: H. Brewton Hagood, Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellants.
John Harris Douglas, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee United States; Ellison D. Smith, IV, Smith & Bundy,
Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee South Carolina.
ON BRIEF: Morris S. Rosen, Rosen, Rosen & Hagood, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellants.
E. Bart Daniel, United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee United States; Richard D. Bybee, Smith & Bundy, Charleston, South
Carolina, for Appellee South Carolina.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
5
Norman W. Stevenson and Jacquelin K. Stevenson, as executor and executrix
of the estate of Thomas C. Stevenson, Jr., appeal the order of the district court
declaring that an easement held by the United States over property owned by
the estate has not been extinguished through cessation of purpose or
abandonment. See 28 U.S.C.A. 2201 (West Supp. 1991). The Stevensons also
challenge the rejection by the district court of their action to quiet title. See 28
U.S.C.A. 2409a (West 1978 & Supp. 1991). Finding no error, we affirm.
I.
6
Thomas C. Stevenson, Jr. owned approximately 81.3 acres of land on the
Ashley River near Charleston, South Carolina. His predecessor in interest
conveyed a spoilage easement over a portion of the property to the United
States. The instrument granted the holder the perpetual right to use the property
for the deposit of spoil excavated during construction and maintenance of the
Ashley River Project and its appurtenances.
In 1972, the South Carolina Department of Highways and Public Transportation
(SCDHPT) determined that a segment of the proposed James Island
Expressway would traverse the property and, as a result, it would be necessary
to condemn a portion of the property covered by the easement. The United
States Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) consented to
construction of the expressway across the easement in early 1988. SCDHPT
ultimately condemned 45.21 acres of the property and awarded Stevenson
$7,000 in compensation.
The Stevensons filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that any rights held
by the United States by virtue of the spoilage easement had either been
abandoned or extinguished through cessation of purpose. They also brought an
action to quiet title.
II.
9
The district court first concluded that the Stevensons' claims failed because
easements held by the United States cannot be extinguished by lack of use.
Relying on evidence indicating that the Corps considered the easement to
remain in existence to facilitate maintenance of the Ashley River and its
appurtenances, the district court alternatively held that the Stevensons failed to
prove any intent on the part of the Government to abandon the easement. In
response to the contention that expiration of the Ashley River Project resulted
in cessation of purpose for the easement, the court determined that furnishing
an area for spoil disposal constituted the primary purpose of the easement.
Since the need to monitor and maintain the river remains and the burden on the
servient estate will not change, the court held that this accommodation of future
needs easily comported with the prospective nature of easements.
10
Our review reveals that the district court properly ruled that easements held by
the United States are not extinguished through lack of use. See United States ex
rel. Tenn. Valley Auth. v. Bagwell, 698 F. Supp. 135, 138 (M.D. Tenn. 1988).
Further, the district court correctly concluded that the United States has not
abandoned its easement over the property, see Carolina Land Co. v. Bland, 217
S.E.2d 16, 21 (S.C. 1975), and that the purpose of the easement has not ceased
to exist, cf. Lethin v. United States, 583 F. Supp. 863, 873 (D. Or. 1984).
Accordingly, we affirm on the findings and reasoning of the district court. See
Rodriguez v. Cuomo, 953 F.2d 33, 36 (2d Cir. 1992) (legal conclusions in
declaratory judgments of a district court ordinarily reviewed de novo); United
States v. Winterburn, 749 F.2d 1283, 1286 n.1 (9th Cir. 1984) (noting that
review of law concerning actions to quiet title is de novo).
AFFIRMED
You might also like
- From EverandOpinion of the Supreme Court of the United States, at January Term, 1832, Delivered by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall in the Case of Samuel A. Worcester, Plaintiff in Error, versus the State of Georgia With a Statement of the Case, Extracted from the Records of the Supreme Court of the United StatesNo ratings yet
