Federal Defendants Axed From Tennessee Landlocked Property Dispute

MEMPHIS (LN) — A federal judge in Tennessee on Tuesday dismissed the United States and the Natural Resources Conservation Service from a landlocked property dispute, ruling the Quiet Title Act bars prescriptive easement claims against the federal government and that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead the elements of such an easement.

The plaintiffs — John R. Parks, Joe T. Harrison, Joey Harrison, Johnny Bratton, and Tyler Orr — alleged they used a levee path crossing the Adams Property to access their hunting parcel for 28 years. In 2023, after Drew T. Adams and Abbie G. Adams purchased the property, they tore down the levee and erected a fence blocking land access.

The plaintiffs sued the Adams Defendants along with the United States and NRCS, asserting a prescriptive easement under Tennessee law (Count I), an easement by law (Count II), and a Fifth Amendment takings claim (Count III).

The court granted the federal defendants' motion to dismiss on Count I, finding the Quiet Title Act expressly bars claims against the United States "based upon adverse possession." The plaintiffs argued their prescriptive easement claim vested before the government acquired its interest in 2023, but the court sided with the plain language of the statute.

"Keeping in mind the fact that the QTA acts as a waiver of sovereign immunity, and conditions on waivers are to be construed strictly, the Court concludes that the plain language of § 2409a(n) bars all claims based on adverse possession, no matter when the claim accrued," U.S. District Judge J. Daniel Breen wrote, adopting the reasoning from Hallauer v. Chicago Title Insurance Co.

The court also found the complaint failed to plausibly allege the "adverse" element required under Tennessee law. The plaintiffs' response brief asserted use without permission for decades, but that argument was raised for the first time in the opposition brief, not the complaint itself.

"Plaintiffs have not moved to amend their complaint," the court noted. "Nor did they seek leave to file a surreply in order to address the Movants' arguments as to the sufficiency of the complaint's adversity claim."

On Count III, the court rejected the takings claim because the plaintiffs failed to establish a valid property interest path as against the federal defendants. The plaintiffs conceded Count II should be dismissed as to the federal defendants.

The matter will proceed against Drew T. Adams and Abbie G. Adams on the remaining state law claims.