FRANK G. CLEMENT, Jr., J.
Plaintiffs appeal a Tenn. R. Civ. P. 12.02(6) dismissal of the complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to the Tennessee Right to Farm Act, codified at Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-101 et seq. ("the TRFA"). Plaintiffs own an express ingress/egress easement, a gravel road, that passes through Defendants' farm. In what Plaintiffs titled a "COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DAMAGES", they alleged, inter alia, that Defendants substantially destroyed the utility of their ingress/egress easement by driving heavy farming equipment across and allowing cattle to walk upon the easement. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and monetary damages. Defendants filed a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss contending that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted because the nuisance claim was barred by the TRFA. More specifically, Defendants contended that Plaintiffs failed to allege that Defendants violated any "generally accepted agricultural practices" or a "statute or regulation" in the use or operation of the farm upon which the easement lies. The trial court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint in its entirety. Plaintiffs appeal. We have determined that the TRFA pertains to nuisances alleged to arise from a farm or farm operations but not to claims of unreasonable interference with the use of an ingress and egress easement. We, therefore, affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs' nuisance claim, for the complaint failed to state a claim for which relief could be granted for a nuisance arising from a farm or farm operation. However, we have determined the complaint states a separate claim for impairment of and damage to Plaintiffs' ingress and egress easement, a claim that is not subject to the TRFA. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint for it states a separate and viable claim for impairment of and damage to Plaintiffs' ingress/egress easement. Further, this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Lyndle and Brenda Curtis ("Plaintiffs") own a parcel of land in Stewart County, Tennessee, which they utilize for hunting and recreational purposes. Their property is land locked; thus, Plaintiffs own an ingress/egress easement, a gravel road, which they use to access their property from a public road. The easement crosses adjacent property owned by Kathy Parchman, which she leases to Robert Earl Parchman (collectively "Defendants").
Robert Parchman, the lessee, farms and raises cattle on the property. His cattle roam at will over the property and they repeatedly walk upon and across the easement. Mr. Parchman also operates heavy equipment on the farm and he frequently drives his equipment across the easement. Plaintiffs maintained the easement by adding gravel as needed and making minor and routine repairs; however, as time passed, Plaintiffs became increasingly disgruntled by the damage caused by the cattle and the heavy equipment to the easement, the gravel road, which impeded their use of the easement for ingress and egress to their property. In hopes of remedying the problem, Plaintiffs proposed building, at their expense, a fence along the easement. After Defendants declined the offer, Plaintiffs filed a verified "Complaint for Abatement of Nuisance and Damages."
In the complaint, which was filed in March of 2013, Plaintiffs stated that Robert Parchman drives heavy equipment over the easement that creates ruts and depressions where water that collects upon the easement, both of which impede Plaintiffs' ability to use their ingress/egress easement. Plaintiffs also stated that the cattle, which feed at a trough that is placed near Plaintiffs' easement, trample the easement (the gravel road) and cause "mud, manure, and attendant odors." Plaintiffs additionally stated that these and other circumstances created by Defendants "impaired and substantially destroyed the utility of the easement as an access route," and that the "operation of heavy equipment which has rutted the easement property and prevented water from draining," "keeping cattle on the land across which the easement lies," and feeding livestock "along the access route, resulting in mud, manure, and attendant odors" amounted to a "private nuisance."
For their remedy, Plaintiffs sought compensatory and punitive damages for the "impairment and substantial destruction" of their ingress/egress easement as well as equitable relief in the form of an abatement of the "nuisance."
Each defendant responded to the complaint by filing an answer denying any liability to Plaintiffs and asserting, in relevant part, the affirmative defense that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted because they failed to comply with the TRFA, at Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-101 et seq.
Soon thereafter, Defendants jointly filed a "Motion to Dismiss." In support of the motion to dismiss, Defendants asserted the two affirmative defenses set forth in their respective answers to the complaint. The first ground set forth was that "Plaintiffs failed to comply with any of the terms and provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-103" and that "[f]ailure to comply with the Tennessee Right to Farm Act subjects the Plaintiffs to sanctions under Rule 11 of the Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure." The second ground asserted in the motion was that the complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
The motion was heard on May 20, 2013. An order entered on June 19, 2013, which dismissed the complaint, states in pertinent part:
Thereafter, Plaintiffs timely filed this appeal.
The standards are well established by which we are to assess a dismissal granted pursuant to a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As our Supreme Court stated in Webb v. Nashville Area Habitat for Humanity, Inc., 346 S.W.3d 422, 426 (Tenn. 2011), "[a] Rule 12.02(6) motion challenges only the legal sufficiency of the complaint, not the strength of the plaintiff's proof or evidence." Commensurately, we look exclusively at the pleadings to determine the sufficiency of the complaint. Id.
"By filing a motion to dismiss, the defendant admits the truth of all of the relevant and material allegations contained in the complaint, but . . . asserts that the allegations fail to establish a cause of action." Id. (citations omitted). When a complaint is challenged by a Rule 12.02(6) motion, the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his or her claim that would warrant relief. Doe v. Sundquist, 2 S.W.3d 919, 922 (Tenn.1999) (citing Riggs v. Burson, 941 S.W.2d 44, 47 (Tenn.1997)). Making such a determination is a question of law. Our review of a trial court's determinations on issues of law is de novo, with no presumption of correctness. Id. (citing Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co., 945 S.W.2d 714, 716 (Tenn.1997)).
Right-to-farm laws are a product of the perception that as urban and residential development increased amidst rural areas, nuisance lawsuits often followed, "levied by individuals . . . who then objected to noises, odors, dust, chemical use, and slow-moving machinery associated with agricultural uses of the land." Shore v. Maple Lane Farms, LLC, No. E2011-00158-SC-R11-CV, 2013 WL 4428904, at *8 (Tenn. August 19, 2013) (quoting Patricia Norris et al., When Urban Agriculture Meets Michigan's Right to Farm Act: The Pig's in the Parlor, 2011 Mich. St. L. Rev. 365, 367). These statutory enactments offered a legislative solution to the concern that nuisance lawsuits prompted by this urban encroachment would result in the loss of valuable farmland. Id.
In an effort to safeguard this state's farmland, in 1982, the Tennessee General Assembly enacted a right-to-farm law in the form of the TRFA, stating "[m]any prime agricultural and forest lands in Tennessee, valuable for producing food and fiber for a hungry world, are being permanently lost for any agricultural purposes;" the legislature felt that these lands warranted protection as they "constitute important economic, physical, social, and esthetic assets to the surrounding lands and to the people of Tennessee." Shore, 2013 WL 4428904, at *9 (citing Act of Mar. 10, 1982, ch. 609, 1982 Tenn. Pub. Acts 92 (as codified and amended at Tenn. Code Ann. § § 43-26-101 to 43-26-104)). Thus, the TRFA operates to protect farms and farm operations from nuisance claims by creating a rebuttable presumption that a nuisance alleged under the statute is not a nuisance. Id.; Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-103.
The TRFA defines a "farm" as "the land, buildings, and machinery used in the commercial production of farm products and nursery stock as defined in § 70-8-303." Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102(1) (emphasis added).
The Act further specifies that a "farm operation" is:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102(2) (emphasis added).
Moreover, the TRFA defines "farm products," as referenced within both the definition of "farm" and "farm operation," above as:
Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102(3) (emphasis added).
Once the applicability of the TRFA is triggered, Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-103 provides:
(Emphasis added).
The foregoing reveals that the TRFA generally operates to protect farms and farm operations from unfounded nuisance claims. More specifically, and pertinent to the complaint at issue, the TRFA affords the owner or operator of the farm or farm operation the rebuttable presumption that the farm or farm operation is not a nuisance unless there is expert evidence the farm operation does not conform to generally accepted agricultural practices or that the farm or farm operation does not comply with applicable statutes or regulations. Tennessee Code Annotated § 43-26-103(a)(1)-(2).
Having considered the purview of the TRFA, we now look to the nature and substance of the claim or claims asserted in the complaint.
The TRFA states that a farming operation does not constitute a nuisance unless it is established by competent expert proof that the farm operation "does not conform to generally accepted agricultural practices" or the farm or farm operation "does not comply with any applicable statute or regulation, including without limitation statutes and regulations administered by the department of agriculture or the department of environment and conservation." Tenn. Code Ann. § 43-26-102(a). Thus, to prevail in a nuisance action arising from or pertaining to a farm or farming operation, the plaintiff must prove, inter alia, the following elements: the farming operating does not comply with "generally accepted agricultural practices" or the farming operation violates an applicable "statute or regulation."
Nevertheless, as the following discussion reveals, our affirmance of the ruling that the complaint fails to state a viable nuisance claim does not preclude a finding that the complaint states a different claim for which relief may be granted, specifically, a claim of unreasonable interference with the use of Plaintiffs' easement across Defendants' farm.
The title Plaintiffs placed on their complaint reads "COMPLAINT FOR ABATEMENT OF NUISANCE AND DAMAGES." Moreover, the complaint asserts, inter alia, that Defendants' farm equipment and cattle impeded the utility of and destroyed their ingress/egress easement constituting a "nuisance" for which they seek damages and injunctive relief. Based upon the title of the complaint and allegations in the complaint such as "nuisance" and "farm equipment and cattle," Defendants understandably asserted an affirmative defense and filed a Rule 12.02(6) motion to dismiss based upon the TRFA.
Defendants' view of the nature and substance of the claim or claims asserted in the complaint notwithstanding, it is the court's responsibility to ascertain the fundamental nature and substance of a claim. Estate of French v. Stratford House, 333 S.W.3d 546, 557 (Tenn. 2011). In assessing same, we are not limited by the manner in which the parties have designated the claims, but make our own independent determinations of the nature and substance of claims asserted. Id. In other words, it is within our authority to peer behind labels to identify the true nature and substance of Plaintiffs' claim or claims. In reviewing Plaintiffs' complaint and allegations, we have determined that Plaintiffs have asserted two separate claims: one for nuisance and one for interfering with and damaging an ingress/egress easement.
Tenn R. Civ. P. 8.01 states that a pleading which sets forth a claim for relief "shall contain (1) a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief, and (2) a demand for judgment for the relief the pleader seeks." To be fair to Defendants, Plaintiffs' complaint is not a good example of the minimal requisites of Rule 8.01. Although the nature and substance of Plaintiffs' claim or claims are inartfully stated, we believe the complaint attempts to set forth a general claim of nuisance and a specific claim of unreasonable interference with the use of their ingress/egress easement. In the opening paragraph of the complaint, Plaintiffs state they are seeking, inter alia, "damages for impairment of the Plaintiffs' use of land belonging to him [sic]," referring to the ingress/egress easement, the gravel road. Plaintiffs additionally allege the following:
In the complaint's prayer for relief, Plaintiffs seek, inter alia:
Defendants farming operations created a nuisance. A closer examination of the complaint, however, reveals that it also contains specific factual assertions that Defendants' cattle and heavy equipment damaged the gravel road Plaintiffs use for ingress and egress, which impairs Plaintiffs' use of their ingress/egress easement across Defendants' property.
An easement is a property right, it is "an interest in property that confers on its holder a legally enforceable right to use another's property for a specific purpose." Shell v. Williams, No. M2013-00711-COA-R3-CV, 2014 WL 118376, at *4 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 14, 2014) (quoting Hall v. Pippin, 984 S.W.2d 617, 620 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1998)). In Tennessee, the rights of the owner of the easement are paramount to those of the landowner, at least to the extent of the easement.
The owners of the land which is subject to an easement have no legal right to unreasonably interfere with an easement holder's enjoyment or use of the easement. Id.; Shell, 2014 WL 118376, at *9 (citing Charles v. Latham, No. E2003-00852-COA-R3-CV, 2004 WL 1898261 (Tenn. Ct. App. Aug. 25, 2004). The type of injury that may be sustained from the wrongful interference with the easement, includes, but is not limited to, "injury to the land itself and diminution of the easement holder's use and enjoyment of his own property, or the use of the easement." Rogers v. Roach, No. M2011-00794-COA-R3-CV, 2012 WL 2337616, at *12 (Tenn. Ct. App. June 19, 2012) (citing Rector v. Halliburton, 2003 WL 535924, at *10 (Tenn. Ct. App. Feb. 26, 2003).
To prevail in an action for unreasonable interference with the use of an easement, the owner of the easement must prove the following elements: (1) the existence of the easement, (2) unreasonable interference with a legitimate use or purpose of the easement; and (3) actual damage to the easement holder's use. Shell, 2014 WL 118376, at *9.
The portions of the complaint quoted in the previous section reveal that Plaintiffs have asserted that they own an ingress/egress easement through Defendants' property, the easement is the only route of access between Plaintiffs' property and the public road, and Defendants have impaired and substantially destroyed the utility of the easement as an access route. Plaintiffs also asserted that the impairment or substantial destruction of their easement is actionable in damages, and absent the intervention of the court, they will continue to suffer damages.
Based upon these and other factual assertions in the complaint, we have concluded that the complaint sufficiently identifies these elements. Therefore, because the essential elements of a claim for unreasonable interference with the use of an easement has been stated, the complaint states a claim for which relief can be granted, that being a claim for unreasonable interference with the use of an easement.
We affirm the dismissal of Plaintiffs' nuisance claims to the extent they are subject to the TRFA; however, we reverse the dismissal of the complaint for Plaintiffs' stated a claim for unreasonable interference with the use of their ingress/egress easement. Therefore, this matter is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Costs of appeal assessed equally against the appellants and the appellees.
