White v. The Ringgold Tel. Co.

The evidence supported the trial court's order condemning certain property for a telephone company's use because the taking was necessary for the provision of reliable telephone services and the company could not procure the property by contract.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

This appeal concerns a petition by The Ringgold Telephone Company to condemn approximately .03 acres of land in Catoosa County for the purpose of providing telephone and telecommunication services. Appellants Brian D. White and Woodland Manor, LLC were among the respondents named in the petition. Following a hearing before a special master, the trial court entered an order condemning the property for Ringgold’s use upon its payment of $3,974.69 into the registry of the court. On appeal, White and Woodland Manor contend that the trial court erred in denying their motion to dismiss the petition and in entering the condemnation order because, as a statutory prerequisite to the condemnation, Ringgold was required to show that it could not procure the property by contract, and because Ringgold’s petition was premature pending resolution of a previously filed lawsuit by White against Ringgold in which Ringgold’s easement rights to the property were at issue. For the reasons set forth below, we disagree and affirm.

The record shows that on March 26, 2004, White and Ringgold agreed that White would grant a perpetual easement to Ringgold to place communication cabinets . . . along with a concrete pad on a portion of certain Catoosa County real property the Property then owned by White.1 The easement was recorded in the county records shortly thereafter. Consistent with the easement, Ringgold placed a concrete pad and telecommunication cabinets on the Property and began providing its customers with internet and telephone services from the facility.

White v. The Ringgold Tel. Co.

The evidence supported the trial court's order condemning certain property for a telephone company's use because the taking was necessary for the provision of reliable telephone services and the company could not procure the property by contract.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report