Kathy and Dennis Nichols own property that is burdened by an underground sewer-line easement that benefits the adjacent property owned by Parris Properties, LLC. The Nicholses brought this action against Parris Properties and its principal, Kenneth Parris collectively, the “Parris Defendants”, to prevent the Parris Defendants from replacing the existing sewer pipe with a larger one. The Parris Defendants answered and counterclaimed for conversion based upon the Nicholses’ disposal of certain construction materials owned by Parris Properties. The case was tried before a jury which found, among other things, that replacement of the existing sewer pipeline with a larger diameter pipe would not constitute a substantial change in the easement, and that the Nicholses were liable for conversion. The trial court subsequently entered its “Final Judgment, Declaratory Judgment, and Order on Permanent Injunction” that included a provision prohibiting the Parris Defendants from making any permanent changes to the surface of the Nicholses’ property in replacing the sewer pipe. The trial court also declined to award costs to the Parris Defendants. The Parris Defendants then filed a motion requesting that the trial court amend the final judgment to remove the provision prohibiting surface alteration and to make additional findings related to the easement, which the trial court denied.
In Case No. A10A1031, the Nicholses contend that the trial court erred by denying their motions for a directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict “j. n. o. v.” pertaining to the scope of the easement and the Parris Properties counterclaim for conversion. In Case Nos. A10A1029 and A10A1030, the Parris Defendants contend that the trial court erred by including the provision prohibiting surface alteration in the judgment, and erred by declining to amend the judgment or award them court costs as the prevailing parties.
