HomeMy WebLinkAbout5.13.21 Esmt Dispute Docs.... -'"· ... ....., .L ... ..... , ....... .L.J .LI .l \.tu '-7 ~
& CLARKu ..
Gary Goodwin
3 708 Garrison Road
Little Rock, AR 72223
Bruce B. Tidwell I Attorney 400 West Capitol Avenue
Direct: (501) 370-1496 Suite 2000
Fax: (501) 244-5310 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3522
E-mail: btidwell@fridayfirm .com www.FridayFirm.com
June 14, 2019
Re: Use of Roadway Easement for Commercial Purposes
Dear Mr. Goodwin:
~ur fin:; has been engaged to represe~t landowners in your area regarding your inappropriate use
0 a roa way easement for commercial purposes.
It is our understanding that in 1997 you were provided an "Easement and Right-of-Way Grant"
by_T?lson Investments, Inc. (Pulaski County Doc. 97-8421) that allowed you to utilize an
ex1stmg roadway to supplement your access to a residence. It is our understanding that you also
have access to your property from Garrison Road.
The specific language from the easement document allowed you to use the existing roadway for
the following purposes:
for ingress and egress by the owner of the Goodwin Home Tract (as herein defined),
his immediate family living there with said owner and his invitees to the tract ...
(emphasis supplied). Until recently, your property was used exclusively for residential
purposes consistent with the plain language of the easement document._
Recently, you started operating a commercial wedding venue at your home under the name
"Goodwin Manor." As a part of that commercial venue, you also began allowing an excessive
number of vehicles from your commercial venture to utilize the existing residential easement
over and across the property now owned by my clients.
The increased traffic from persons using your commercial venture inappropriately exceeds the
scope of the easement granted to you. In a 1957 case, the Arkansas Supreme Court noted:
[O]ur courts do recognize the well established principle that, in case of a private easement, as
contrasted with a public highway, it is not permissible to impose a burden which is greater than
the use which brought the private easement into existence. N. C. Westlake v. Duncan, Diekman
and Duncan Mining Co .. 228 Ark. 336,. 307 S. W.2d 220 (1957)(citing to Lynch v. White, 85
Conn. 545)(emphasis in original).
FEC\ 7095895 . v2•6114/J 9
Gary (jo00Wlll
June 14, 2019
Page2
In addition, the increased traffic from persons attending events at your commercial venture -
some of whom will have been consuming alcoholic beverages --is disruptive and potentially
dangerous to the other landowners that we represent. In using the easement provided to you,
Arkansas law requires that you "use the easement in a manner that will not interfere with the
[other landowner's] rights to utilization and enjoyment of the property." Bean v. Johnson. 279
Ark 115, 649 S. W.2d 171 (1983)(citing to Davis v. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., 248 Ark. 881,
454 S. W2d 331 (1970)). Your current commercial use of the roadway inappropriately interferes
with the other landowners use and enjoyment of the roadway and their land.
For the rea§O~§ noted in this letter, our clients demand that you immediately cease using the
roadway for commercial traffic associated with Goodwin Manor. If you continue to
inappropriately utilize the roadway for commercial purposes, our clients will pursue \ega\ action
!o restrict your use of the roadway and to recover the damages, fees and costs they are forced to
incur.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter, please feel free to either e-mail me at
btidwell@fridayfirm.com or give me a call at (501) 370-1496.
Very truly yours,
FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK, LLP
Bruce B. Tidwell
l t City o f Littl e Rock
Department o f Pla nning and Development
723 West Mark ham Street
Little Rock, A rk a nsas 72201 -1 3 3 4
Phone : (50 1) 37 1-4 790 Fax: (501 ) 399-3435 o r 37 1 -6863
Plannlng
Zoning and
Subd ivision
ZONING VIOLATION WARNING NOTICE
October 14, 2019
GOODWIN GARY S
3708 GARRISON RD
LITTLE ROCK, AR 72223
Violation Address: 3708 Garrison, Goodwin Manor
The property listed above appears to be in violation of the City of Little Rock Zoning
Ordinance:
•,,.~.
VIOLATION: Section 36-254, Zone R-2, operating an event center in a residential
zoned property, Goodwin Manor.
Please contact th e City of Little Rock Planning and Development Department to
discuss this matter.
Zoning Enforcement Officer
fi ones@littlerock.go v
501 -371 -4865
1
avfpa@sbcglobal.net
From:Jay T. Taylor <JTaylor@fridayfirm.com>
Sent:Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:51 AM
To:Cade Cox
Subject:RE: Clarification
Cade,
They want the abandonment of easement signed as a condition to them not contesting/objecting at any level of
City approvals, not tied to the ultimate success of the zoning.
Jay
JAY T. TAYLOR | ATTORNEY
JTaylor@fridayfirm.com | Direct: (501) 370-1485 | Fax (501) 244-5325
400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3522 | www.FridayFirm.com
WE ARE REQUIRED BY IRS RULES TO INFORM YOU THAT ANY TAX ADVICE CONTAINED IN
OUR COMMUNICATION (INCLUDING ANY OF OUR ATTACHMENTS) IS NOT INTENDED OR
WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND CANNOT BE USED, BY YOU OR ANY OTHER TAXPAYER (1) FOR
THE PURPOSE OF AVOIDING ANY PENALTIES THAT MAY BE IMPOSED UNDER FEDERAL TAX
LAW OR (2) PROMOTING, MARKETING OR RECOMMENDING TO ANOTHER PARTY ANY
TRANSACTION OR MATTER ADDRESSED HEREIN OR IN ANY SUCH ATTACHMENTS.
This e-mail message and any attachments contain confidential information that may be legally privileged. If you
are not the intended recipient, you must not review, retransmit, convert to hard copy, copy, use or disseminate
this e-mail or any attachments to it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by
return e-mail or by telephone at 501-370-1485 and delete this e-mail. Please note that if this e-mail contains a
forwarded message or is a reply to a prior message, some or all of the contents of this message or any
attachments may not have been produced by Friday, Eldredge & Clark, LLP. Receipt of e-mail does not
establish an attorney-client relationship.
-----Original Message-----
From: Cade Cox <clcox@csmfirm.com>
Sent: Wednesday, May 6, 2020 9:26 AM
To: Jay T. Taylor <JTaylor@fridayfirm.com>
Subject: Clarification
Jay, I will be getting your response today, but can I have a clarification?
Are your clients offering to accept the abandonment of the easement only after the city approval process has
run its course?
2
In other words, would the Contract between us state that in exchange for your agreement not to contest the
application, the easement would be abandoned only upon final approval by the City Board of our application
for the PZD? As you know there are more steps after the 14th.
If you can confirm yes or no on this I can relay the clarification to my clients, thanks again ..
-Cade
Sent from my iPhone