{ "id": 8551726, "name": "ARTHUR L. HILL and wife, FRANCES W. HILL v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH", "name_abbreviation": "Hill v. Town of Hillsborough", "decision_date": "1980-09-02", "docket_number": "No. 8015SC114", "first_page": "553", "last_page": "559", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "48 N.C. App. 553" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "163 S.E. 2d 625", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "2 N.C. App. 672", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554980 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/2/0672-01" ] }, { "cite": "70 S.E. 824", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.", "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "826-827" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "154 N.C. 359", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8652401 ], "year": 1911, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "365-366" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/154/0359-01" ] }, { "cite": "152 S.E. 2d 336", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "340" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "269 N.C. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8562561 ], "year": 1967, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "216" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/269/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "218 S.E. 2d 368", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "288 N.C. 338", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8568288 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/288/0338-01" ] }, { "cite": "254 S.E. 2d 160", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "297 N.C. 113", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8567027 ], "year": 1979, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/297/0113-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 534, "char_count": 12336, "ocr_confidence": 0.71, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.0941776979832987e-07, "percentile": 0.5664401669749858 }, "sha256": "971eeb14924b718b67b87798239b76e0aa2ce2375f378d0a2ff73915a9bff7c8", "simhash": "1:aeda50fe963523d3", "word_count": 2039 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:18:20.579461+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges Webb and Martin (Harry C.) concur." ], "parties": [ "ARTHUR L. HILL and wife, FRANCES W. HILL v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nDefendant\u2019s main arguments are that the plaintiffs\u2019 evidence failed to establish the true boundary line between the property of the parties and that upon the evidence, plaintiffs were estopped to complain of the location of defendant\u2019s road and utility lines. It is settled law that where the case is tried by the judge without a jury, the court\u2019s findings of fact have the force and effect of a jury verdict and are conclusive on appeal if there is competent evidence to support them, even though the evidence might sustain findings to the contrary. Henderson County v. Osteen, 297 N.C. 113, 254 S.E. 2d 160 (1979); Williams v. Insurance Co., 288 N.C. 338, 218 S.E. 2d 368 (1975). From the evidence it is clear that plaintiffs\u2019 surveyors established plaintiffs\u2019 property lines by physical survey, and that their survey tends to show the location of defendant\u2019s road and utility lines on plaintiffs\u2019 property. There was accordingly sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court\u2019s operative findings of fact fixing the location of defendant\u2019s road and utility lines on plaintiffs\u2019 property.\nDefendant argues that since the trial court found that prior to the construction of the road, plaintiff Arthur Hill had mistakenly pointed out to defendant\u2019s agents where he believed the corners of his property line to be, defendant was entitled to judgment in its favor on the theory of equitable estoppel. The requirements for application of the doctrine of equitable estoppel were set forth by our Supreme Court in Matthieu v. Gas Co., 269 N.C. 212, 216, 152 S.E. 2d 336, 340 (1967), quoting from Boddie v. Bond, 154 N.C. 359, 365-366, 70 S.E. 824, 826-827 (1911):\n\u201cIn order to constitute an equitable estoppel, there must exist a false representation or concealment of material fact, with a knowledge, actual or constructive, of the truth; the other party must have been without such knowledge, or having the means of knowledge of the real facts, must not have been culpably negligent in informing himself; it must have been intended or expected that the representation or concealment should be acted upon, and the party asserting the estoppel must have reasonably relied on it or acted upon it to his prejudice ... . It is a species of fraud which forms the basis of the doctrine, and to prevent its consummation is its object.\u2019' [Emphasis ours.]\nAccord, Yancey v. Watkins, 2 N.C. App. 672, 163 S.E. 2d 625 (1968). From the evidence in this case it is plain that it was simply not reasonable for the defendant to rely on the casual, informal opinion of the property owner as to the actual boundaries of the property, when the defendant had employed professional surveyors capable of determining this information for themselves. The doctrine of equitable estoppel was accordingly not applicable. In its fourth assignment of error, defendant argues that the evidence does not support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact with respect to the value of plaintiffs\u2019 property taken by defendant. Plaintiffs\u2019 expert appraisal witness testified that in her opinion lot number 12 was worth between $6,000 and $10,000 before the road was put on the lot and that after the road was put on the lot, the lot could be worth between $100 and $300. We find that this evidence was clearly sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact with respect to the value of the property.\nThe judgment of the trial court must be\nAffirmed.\nJudges Webb and Martin (Harry C.) concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "F. Lloyd Noellfor the plaintiffs.", "Graham & Cheshire, by D. Michael Parker, for the defendant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ARTHUR L. HILL and wife, FRANCES W. HILL v. TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH\nNo. 8015SC114\n(Filed 2 September 1980)\n1. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 43- road built by city on plaintiffs\u2019 land - sufficiency of evidence\nIn an action to recover damages for the continuing trespass of defendant town there was sufficient competent evidence to support the trial court\u2019s finding that defendant\u2019s road and utility lines were on plaintiffs\u2019 property where the evidence tended to show that plaintiffs\u2019 surveyors established plaintiffs\u2019 property lines by physical survey, and their survey showed the location of defendant\u2019s road and utility lines on plaintiffs\u2019 property.\n2. Estoppel \u00a7 4.3- landowner mistakenly pointing out boundaries - no reasonable reliance on representation - equitable estoppel inapplicable\nIn an action to recover damages for the continuing trespass of defendant town which allegedly constructed a road across plaintiffs\u2019 property, the fact that one plaintiff had mistakenly pointed out to defendant\u2019s agents where he believed the corners of his property line to be did not entitle defendant to judgment in its favor on the theory of equitable estoppel, since it was not reasonable for defendant to rely on the casual, informal opinion of the property owner as to the actual boundaries of the property when defendant had employed professional surveyors capable of determining this information for themselves.\n3. Municipal Corporations \u00a7 43- road built on plaintiffs\u2019 land - evidence of value\nIn a continuing trespass case testimony by plaintiffs\u2019 expert appraisal witness that, in her opinion, their land was worth $6,000-$10,000 before a road was built and $100-$300 after the road was built was sufficient to support the trial court\u2019s findings of fact with respect to the value of the property.\nAppeal by defendant from B attle, Judge. Judgment entered 31 October 1979 in Superior Court, Orange County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 6 June 1980.\nThis action was commenced by the plaintiff landowners for damages for the continuing trespass of the defendant town. Plaintiffs alleged in their complaint that they were the owners in fee of a certain parcel of land in Orange County and that during 1974, the defendant took possession of a portion of this parcel, constructing a roadway from the southwest corner of the property to the northeast corner and placing power and sewer lines along the road. Defendant admitted construction of the road and utility lines, but denied that it had encroached on plaintiffs\u2019 land. The town further defended on grounds that prior to the construction of the road and utility lines, plaintiff Arthur Hill had shown to defendant\u2019s engineers the location of a corner in his property line and indicated to them where his property line was, and that defendant\u2019s construction did not encroach upon plaintiffs\u2019 property. Defendant alleged that plaintiffs\u2019 action was barred under the doctrine of equitable estoppel. The action was heard before Judge Battle in the absence of a jury.\nAt trial, plaintiff Arthur Hill testified that he and his wife were the owners of lot number 12 in the Whitfield Farm Subdivision, that in 1974 defendant constructed a road and water and electrical lines across lot number 12, and that neither he nor his wife had given permission for said construction. It was stipulated that plaintiffs had received no compensation from defendant for any easement in the vicinity of plaintiffs\u2019 property.\nGeorge C. Love, Jr., testified for plaintiff that he was a registered land surveyor, that he had examined a plat of lot number 12 made by Kenneth J. Sinclair, a registered land surveyor employed by him, and that he had gone upon the land with Sinclair to verify the property lines shown on Sinclair\u2019s plat. Sinclair, testifying for plaintiff, stated that he had surveyed lot number 12 and prepared a plat showing the results of his survey. Defendant\u2019s road crossed lot number 12. Elsie C. Smith, a local realtor, testified for plaintiffs as to the value of plaintiffs\u2019 property before and after the road was built.\nDefendant offered the testimony of William Thomas Hott, James W. Wilder, and John B. Pridgen, Jr. Hott testified that he was employed by the engineering firm of Rose, Pridgen, and Freeman as a survey crew party chief and that he conducted preliminary survey work in the Whitfield Farm Subdivision in an effort to locate defendant\u2019s easement. Hott stated that while the work was going on, plaintiffs informed him that he was on their property. He arranged a meeting with the plaintiff Arthur Hill and Pridgen for the purpose of having Hill show them where his property lines were. Hill met with him and Pridgen and showed them certain points on a map of the area and told them that these points were the western corners of lot number 12, and that the road was constructed parallel to the line where plaintiff Arthur Hill had indicated to them his western property line ran. Hill had told them that the road was constructed west of that line. On cross-examination, Hott testified that he surveyed the area before the road was built and that in his opinion, when the road was constructed it was not on plaintiffs\u2019 property. Hott did not know whose property the road was on.\nPridgen testified that he was a registered engineer and land surveyor, that he met with Hott and Hill at the site of defendant\u2019s easement, and that Hill identified his western line on defendant\u2019s map of the vicinity. On cross-examination, he testified that \u201c[w]e had very little choice but to accept what Mr. Hill said was his established line.\u201d\nWilder testified that he sold lot number 12 to the plaintiffs and that if the property line was located where plaintiffs contended, the line would go through his property. On cross-examination, Wilder testified he had not had his line run and that he did not know where his lines were. Plaintiff Arthur Hill testified on rebuttal that he \u201cwalked the property off\u201d with Pridgen and others, but that he did not know where his line was until it was surveyed.\nThe trial judge entered the following pertinent findings of fact:\n2. The property of the plaintiffs is correctly shown on the map prepared by George C. Love, Jr. dated December 14, 1977, and introduced in this trial as Plaintiffs Exhibit #2.\n3. The defendant, Town of Hillsborough, a Municipal Corporation, contracted with the firm of Rose, Pridgen and Freeman, a construction and surveying company, to assist the Town in the construction of a water reservoir and an access road leading from Highway 70-A to the water reservoir site which was to be located to the north of plaintiffs\u2019 property. Representatives of Rose, Pridgen and Freeman, acting on behalf of the Town of Hillsborough, commenced to survey the property and were surveying in the vicinity of the plaintiffs\u2019 property. A meeting was held between the plaintiff Arthur L. Hill, and representatives of the Town of Hillsborough and Rose, Pridgen and Freeman, at the site of the proposed road. At this time the plaintiff, Arthur L. Hill, pointed out what he thought were the stakes for the western line of his property. Instead of pointing out the correct stake which would have been the stake at the northwest corner of the property, the stake at the northeast corner of the property was incorrectly identified as representing a stake in the western lines of the plaintiffs\u2019] property.\n4. The Town of Hillsborough then caused the access road to be constructed. It was the intention of the Town of Hillsborough to construct the line along the western boundary of the plaintiffs\u2019 property and for the road not to in any way come upon plaintiffs\u2019 property. However, the access road as constructed crosses diagonally across plaintiff\u2019s [sic] property from its southwest corner to its northeast corner as shown on the plat introduced into evidence as Plaintiffs\u2019 Exhibit #2.\n5. The plaintiffs at no time have executed any document of any kind granting to the defendant, Town of Hills-borough, any easement over their property.\n* * *\n8. That the fair market value of plaintiffs\u2019 property immediately prior to the construction of the road and the water line by the Town of Hillsborough was Six Thousand Dollars ($6,000.00). That the fair market value of the plaintiffs\u2019 property immediately after the construction of the road and the water line and the taking of the easement by the Town of Hillsborough was Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00).\n9. The plaintiffs have received no compensation from the Town of Hillsborough.\nUpon these findings of fact, the trial judge entered judgment for the plaintiffs. From the trial court\u2019s denial of defendant\u2019s motion for an involuntary dismissal at the close of the evidence and entry of judgment for the plaintiffs, defendant appeals.\nF. Lloyd Noellfor the plaintiffs.\nGraham & Cheshire, by D. Michael Parker, for the defendant." }, "file_name": "0553-01", "first_page_order": 581, "last_page_order": 587 }