Background
Marla Ann Richardson has lived at 5153 East Main Street in Erin, Tennessee since 1975, operating a farm on the property. In 2014, Dianne Moore purchased the adjacent property at 5155 East Main Street. Both properties share access to East Main Street through a Y-shaped driveway, which the Richardson family had used continuously since purchasing their land — including for commercial farming equipment and dump trucks — through multiple prior ownerships of the neighboring lot. Moore, who was living out of state when she bought the property, was unaware of this use pattern and, after moving in, began obstructing the driveway and asserting that the Richardsons had no right to use it for commercial purposes.
Richardson filed suit in the Chancery Court for Houston County seeking a determination of the boundary line between the properties and either title to the land encompassing the driveway or an easement to use it. Moore counterclaimed, disputing the boundary and seeking to restrict any easement to residential vehicles. The trial court referred the matter to a special master, who heard testimony from Richardson, her son, Moore, a licensed surveyor, the county sheriff, and the local police chief.
The special master issued a detailed report finding that Richardson’s surveyor was credible, that the surveyor’s boundary determination was accurate, and that Richardson had established both a prescriptive easement and an easement by necessity over the driveway. The trial court adopted the special master’s report verbatim and overruled Moore’s objections. Moore, proceeding pro se, appealed on three grounds: the boundary determination, the easement by necessity finding, and the prescriptive easement finding.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court on all issues. On the boundary question, the court declined to second-guess the concurrent credibility findings of the special master and trial court, noting that Moore presented no competing surveyor testimony and that her own surveyor’s conclusions were disputed by Moore herself. Under Tennessee law, concurrent findings of fact by a special master and chancellor supported by material evidence are binding on appeal.
On the prescriptive easement, the court found clear and convincing evidence that the Richardson family had used the driveway continuously, openly, visibly, and with the knowledge and acquiescence of successive servient-tenement owners for well over the required 20-year prescriptive period — dating back to 1975. Critically, the court held that this easement encompassed commercial farming equipment, construction vehicles, and dump trucks, because that was the scope of use maintained throughout the prescriptive period. Because the prescriptive easement was established, the court declined to reach the easement-by-necessity theory.
The court also declined Richardson’s request for attorney’s fees under Tennessee Code Annotated § 27-1-122, finding that Moore’s pro se appeal, while unsuccessful, was not frivolous. Moore had cited relevant law and facts, and the appeal therefore had some arguable basis.
Key Takeaways
- A prescriptive easement established before a new owner purchases the servient estate runs with the land and binds that subsequent owner — Moore could not unilaterally revoke an easement that had already vested through use during prior ownerships.
- The scope of a prescriptive easement is defined by the actual historic use: because the Richardsons had openly used the driveway with commercial farming equipment for decades, the easement covers that level of use, not merely residential vehicles.
- Concurrent findings of fact by a special master and a chancellor are binding on Tennessee appellate courts absent a showing of legal error, lack of supporting material evidence, or an issue improperly referred — oral testimony alone, without documentary corroboration, can satisfy this evidentiary standard.
- A losing pro se appellant’s appeal is not automatically frivolous; Tennessee courts will deny fee-shifting under § 27-1-122 where the appellant made legitimate, reasoned arguments supported by citations to law and facts.
Why It Matters
This decision reinforces that prescriptive easements are appurtenant rights that survive changes in ownership of the burdened property — a rule with significant practical consequences for buyers who purchase land without fully investigating long-standing patterns of neighboring use. Purchasers who discover post-closing that a neighbor has used a portion of their land for decades may find themselves bound by an easement they were unaware of, underscoring the importance of pre-purchase surveys, title searches, and physical inspection of the property for evidence of adverse use.
The case also illustrates the breadth that courts will attribute to prescriptive easements: the scope is measured by actual historic use, not the new owner’s preferences. Moore’s effort to limit any easement to residential vehicles failed because the agricultural and commercial use of the driveway had itself been open and continuous for the requisite period. Attorneys advising clients in rural or agricultural property disputes should take note of how Tennessee courts evaluate the interplay between prescriptive period use, scope, and subsequent ownership.