## Facts

- In 1957, six joint owners of a private drive serving their river-front lots signed a written instrument allowing Robert E. Hodnette, Jr. (a practicing attorney at the time, later a retired circuit judge) and his wife, Agnes, to use the northernmost 900 feet of the drive for ingress and egress to their property and the portion where they planned to build a home.
- The instrument stated the Hodnettes received a “personal right” to use the road and included language excluding an easement “to run with” the Hodnettes’ land, reflecting that the right was not intended to transfer to later purchasers.
- The Hodnettes provided consideration (one dollar) and agreed to contribute pro rata to upkeep of the drive.
- In a contemporaneous letter to the owners, Hodnette explained the arrangement was intended to let him and his wife use the road in connection with their home, while preventing later owners from claiming the same right if the Hodnettes sold the property.
- The Hodnettes built and occupied their home and used the private drive for access for many years without objection from the joint owners.
- In 1989, Hodnette granted the Mobile Water and Sewer Board an easement to install sewer service benefiting him and the other owners. During that project, the Sewer Board repaved and widened the private drive and also constructed a gravel road on Hodnette’s property that provided access to a public road.
- In 1994, Lee G. Shearer, one of the co-owning landowners of the private drive, dug a trench across the drive at the entrance to the Hodnettes’ property, blocking their use of the drive.
- The Hodnettes sued to require Shearer to restore the drive and to prevent further interference. The trial court ruled for the Hodnettes, and Shearer appealed.

## Issues

1. Did the 1957 instrument create only a revocable personal license, or did the Hodnettes’ paid-for and long-relied-upon right to use the drive become irrevocable in equity?
2. Could a co-owner of the private drive lawfully obstruct the drive to terminate or impair the Hodnettes’ use, given the instrument’s “personal” and non-transfer language?
3. Did the existence of other access to a public road (via the gravel road) bar relief protecting the Hodnettes’ right to use the private drive?

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the judgment for the Hodnettes.
- The court treated the 1957 grant as a license in form, but held that the circumstances brought the case within Alabama’s exception making certain licenses irrevocable: the grant was supported by consideration and was relied on in building and occupying a home and in long-term, open use with the owners’ knowledge.
- Because the Hodnettes’ right to use the drive was irrevocable under that exception, Shearer could not block access by trenching the road.
- The court upheld relief requiring restoration of access and preventing continued interference; the availability of alternate access did not defeat the Hodnettes’ claim to continued use of the private drive.

## Legal Principles

- A license to use land is generally revocable, even if granted for consideration, but equity may treat a license as irrevocable when the licensee materially changes position in reasonable reliance on the permission and the licensor knows (or should know) that reliance is occurring.
- Longstanding, open use of a granted access right to reach and occupy a residence, coupled with consideration and acquiescence over many years, supports enforcement of the right against later interference by the grantors and their successors in ownership of the servient property.
- Contract language that a right is “personal” and does not run with the land limits transferability, but it does not prevent a court from enforcing the right against revocation where equitable estoppel applies.
- A co-owner may not unilaterally obstruct a jointly owned access way to defeat another’s judicially protected right of use.
- Injunctive relief and restorative orders (such as filling a trench) are proper to stop ongoing interference with a protected right of access.

## Conclusion

Shearer v. Hodnette holds that although the 1957 road-use instrument was framed as a personal, non-transfer right rather than an easement running with the land, the Hodnettes’ payment, agreement to share upkeep, construction and occupancy of their home, and decades of use with the owners’ knowledge made the permission irrevocable in equity. The court therefore affirmed an order requiring Shearer to restore the private drive and refrain from blocking the Hodnettes’ access, notwithstanding the Hodnettes’ ability to reach a public road by another route.


Shearer v. Hodnette, 674 So.2d 548 (1995)