Coats v. Ayers, [Ms. SC-2023-0134, June 14, 2024] __ So. 3d __ (Ala. 2024). The Court (Shaw, J.; Parker, C.J., and Bryan, Mendheim, and Mitchell, JJ., concur) reverses in part and affirms in part the Tuscaloosa Circuit Court’s summary judgment denying applications to condemn rights of way to two separate parcels (the 80-acre parcel and the Section 10 property) of property owned by Stacy and Kendall Coats.
The Court notes that “the remaining section 15 property ‘merged’ into a single tract or body of land when Stacy [Coats] became the owner of both ....” Ms. *15. The Court affirms as to the 80-acre parcel because “[t]he plain language of § 18-3-1 does not allow landowners to seek a right-of-way over the property of another simply because they have no reasonable, adequate means to access parts of their property; instead, one may seek to acquire a right of-way when ‘no part’ of their ‘tract or body of land is adjacent or contiguous to any public road or highway.’ In this case, the section 15 property, which, without dispute, includes the ‘merged’ 80-acre portion, is adjacent to New River Road, which is a public road. Ms. *20.
The Court reverses the summary judgment as to the “Section 10” property; that parcel “is ‘landlocked’ for purposes of § 18-3-1, and because there is a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the Coatses have an existing, reasonable means to access that property....” Ms. *25.